Recently I have noticed that a few bloggers have left nasty comments on the Calvinistflyswatter blog. Some of these comments were derogatory as respecting the lack of comments or readers that seem to visit the flyswatter. These nasty comments have come from those who promote the Hybrid Calvinism of those who preach regeneration before and without faith. I too have had a few of these kinds of comments.
I really appreciate Bob and Charles for not "rendering evil for evil."
How do these people know how many people read the flyswatter or my baptistgadfly blog? How can the number of comments be a proper indicator? Maybe they are saying things that are unrefutable?
Consider also that the flyswatter, like my own blog, is a newcomer on the block. I for one am not internet savvy to be able to insure that my blog comes up quickly when doing an internet search. I have not been going at it for twenty years or so, like the Founder's blog or Pyromaniacs, etc.
Consider also that the Hybrids seem to practice "black-balling," having their own "clique" and you must "pass muster" to get included as a "link" on their web sites. Considering how they promote one another, and themselves, seeking fame, it is no wonder they have more readers and comments.
Still, what difference does it make? Are we in a popularity contest?
The root word for "ignorance" is "ignore," and if folks want to ignore, or try to ignore the truth that is being sounded forth in the flyswatter and in the baptistgadfly, then go ahead.
Also, I find little grace in the comments by the Hybrids. I have said before, it is ironic that those who promote the doctrine of grace sometimes show so little of it towards others.
Why have I not gotten more comments from the Hardshells? Is it because they are not reading? Well, sure, many are not reading. But, my writings are available to any Hardshell who wants to read it and make comment. Also, many are reading. I get more private emails than I do public comment from them.
So, let us not be falsely interpreting what it may, or may not, mean for one not to have a lot of readers or comments.
May 22, 2008
May 19, 2008
Works in Progress
Those who have followed my recent postings here will observe that I have already reviewed two leading writings on the "regeneration before faith" view, those of Bill Ascol and R. C. Sproul. I do plan to add some future writings regarding the view these men promote, one Baptist and one Presbyterian.
In addition to finishing my series on "Hardshells and the Great Commission," I have hopes to get fully into the next two series in the book - "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," one on "Salvation - Conditional or Unconditional?" and one on "Hardshell Proof Texts." In addition to these I am doing research to write a series of articles to be entitled "Calvinists and Prevenient Grace." I hope to have this series done some time this summer.
I continue to work on researching the subject of "Eldership Rule in Baptist churches" with the hopes of writing a series on this important issue.
Stephen
In addition to finishing my series on "Hardshells and the Great Commission," I have hopes to get fully into the next two series in the book - "The Hardshell Baptist Cult," one on "Salvation - Conditional or Unconditional?" and one on "Hardshell Proof Texts." In addition to these I am doing research to write a series of articles to be entitled "Calvinists and Prevenient Grace." I hope to have this series done some time this summer.
I continue to work on researching the subject of "Eldership Rule in Baptist churches" with the hopes of writing a series on this important issue.
Stephen
May 18, 2008
Chpt. 76 - The Great Commission XI
I began the last chapter with a citation from Dr. Carey in which he was giving argument for why the "Great Commission" had not been fulfilled, and how it was yet binding upon Christians. Let me begin this chapter by citing from him again.
Dr. Carey continues:
"SECONDLY, If the command of Christ to teach all nations be confined to the apostles, then all such ordinary ministers who have endeavoured to carry the gospel to the heathens, have acted without a warrant, and run before they were sent. Yea, and though God has promised the most glorious things to the heathen world by sending his gospel to them, yet whoever goes first, or indeed at all, with that message, unless he have a new and special commission from heaven, must go without any authority for so doing."
Again, it is to be observed how Carey refers to a belief that some had raised, in his day, against attempting to fulfill the Commission. They gave as their reason that the "Great Commission" was given only to the apostles. Thus, the Hardshells can at least claim some in the latter 18th century as favoring their view. In the first chapter in this series I cited Hardshell founding father, Elder Gilbert Beebe, who took this view. He believed that the Commission was given strictly to the apostles, and that they fulfilled it before they died, and that all other ministers since receive a special commission to go and preach and baptize.
I suspect that Beebe was well acquainted with the writings of Carey, and even these words. I am sure that Beebe saw, as Carey pointed out, that there are but two possible views regarding having "warrant" to go, preach, teach, make disciples, and to baptize. Either the minister or church receives it from the "Great Commission" or some other personalized Commission. Beebe chose the latter.
Other Hardshells have disagreed with Beebe, for the most part, agreeing with Carey, one of the men they love to hate, believing that the "Great Commission" WAS what gave warrant to ministers to preach, and that they did not all therefore need special Commissions. What the Hardshells have done, for the most part, is to say that the "Great Commission" was given to the "apostles AS REPRESENTING the gospel ministry."
I have already shown how this idea is false. There is much more weight of testimony from scripture and Baptist history to demonstrate that the group spoken to was not a ministerial group, but to a group of disciples.
Hardshells believe that no ordinary disciple has any warrant to preach the gospel, that is, to tell others about the story of Christ. This is a great error on their part and one I have shown to be against scripture and Baptist teachings, the confessions, and writings of our able ministers. I have already cited numerous scriptures that disprove this damnable notion. In the last chapter of the bible it is said - "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Revelation 22: 17 KJV) The church, yea, every individual disciple, may say to sinners "come"! And certainly this invitation to "come" to Christ and the "water of life" requires that the one giving the invitation explain a little of the nature of the invitation, or preach the gospel.
Carey continues:
"THIRDLY, If the command of Christ to teach all nations extend only to the apostles, then, doubtless, the promise of the divine presence in this work must be so limited; but this is worded in such a manner as expressly precludes such an idea. Lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world."
I think most Hardshells acknowledge the weight of this argument. It is clear that Jesus anticipated that the "Great Commission" would extend till the coming of Christ and the "end of the world (age)."
Next, I wish to cite some excepts from Dr. (Elder) John M. Watson, whom I have already referred to in earlier chapters in this book. Elder Watson, from middle Tennessee, was a leader in the "anti-mission" or "Old School" movement in Tennessee from the very beginning of the division between the so-called New School and the Old School. He was one of several leading Elders in the movement which began with the Kehukee Declaration of 1827 and the Black Rock Address of 1832.
Elder Watson was the second editor of one of the very first religious newspapers that were begun by the anti-mission forces immediately after the "split" with the "Missionaries." From historical records we learn that "The Old Baptist Banner" was commenced in Nashville, in 1838 and was edited at first by Rev. Washington Lowe (who was apparently a lawyer in Springfield), but Elder Watson soon took it over and became its leading promoter.
This paper seems to have been begun to be a counter voice to the previously begun Missionary Baptist publication called "The Baptist Banner." I have searched in vain to find any library that has any copies or information of this periodical. I believe that this periodical, if bound volumns could be found, will reveal much about the genesis of the "anti-missionary movement" and would be of great historical benefit.
Later, towards the end of his life, Dr. Watson published his famous book called "The Old Baptist Test," from which I have already cited (my friend Bob Ross also has cited from this book). I have seen various dates given for its first publication, the earliest information being that it was published in Nashville by Republican Banner Press in 1855. Other dates are nearer the end of his life, around 1865 or 1866. It also appears that Elder R. W. Fain, who wrote the introduction to the book, actually finished the book for the ailing Dr. Watson. But, I will be having more to say about Elder Watson in future chapters dealing with "Hardshell Founding Fathers." I have already cited him to show that many of the first Hardshells did believe in gospel means in regeneration, and their being part of the movement was due to their opposition to "methods" of evangelism, and against mission "boards" and "societies" outside of the control of the local church.
Elder Watson wrote:
"In our separation from the Missionaries about 1836, I had to bear many unkind reproaches and misrepresentations, but, thank God, I was able to bear up under all of them. I was very anxious that we should adopt some plan consonant with the Holy Scriptures by means of which a separation might be avoided. To that end I worked assiduously for sometime, but it became very apparent that it was impracticable, and I then took a decided stand with the Old Order; then came aspersions instead of compliments as before." (Old Baptist Test, page 36)
This is quite interesting and noteworthy. First, when Elder Watson mentions the date of division over the question of missions, in the year 1836, he was referring to the time of the division in the churches in middle Tennessee and parts of Kentucky. Second, when he mentions his efforts at avoiding a division, he shows how unlike he was to the Hardshell "ultraists" who were also part of the movement.
This citation shows that Dr. Watson was not opposed to missions, done by the church and ministry, but was only opposed to certain "methods" then being advanced. Also, as we shall see, all references to "doctrine" being the issue concerned only the question of the extent of the atonement, Watson believing that too many of the "Missionary Baptists" were denying election, limited atonement, and other important "doctrines of grace," and were not preaching predestination as they should. But, he never once denounced the view that sinners were born again and saved through the preaching of the gospel and by faith in it. The fact is, as I have shown in previous chapters, and will demonstrate further in this one, Elder John Watson, together with Elder John Clark, another important early leader in the "anti-mission" movement, believed in means in the eternal salvation of sinners.
Also, the final decision of Elder Watson to "side with the Old Order of Baptists," or with those who came to be better known as "Hardshells," was not one that ultimately brought him peace of mind, as I think anyone familiar with his life can testify. Before he departed this life he left scathing rebukes to the "Old Order Baptists" about their neglect of the "Great Commission."
Did his Hardshell brethren ever show the Mission Baptist how to properly conduct missions according to the "bible plan"? No, sadly, what Elder Watson desired and called upon his Hardshell brethren to do, they rather ignored and spent all their time decrying what others were doing when they were doing nothing themselves.
Elder Watson wrote:
"It has been a constant prediction among the Old Order of Baptists for more than thirty years past, that these institutions would eventually do great injury, by breaking and perverting Gospel truths. The writer can most truthfully say, that he tried again and again to have fellowship for these things, seemingly so expedient, and for those who were so zealously engaged in them, but he could not, and was often tempted to fear that the fault was with himself." (page 70)
Again, this is most interesting. Elder Watson, I am sure, did sincerely try to avoid a division over the question of mission methodology. I really believe that he thought that the "Old Order" could win the war by "leading the way" in showing other Baptists "how to do it." Sadly, in writing his book just shortly before he died, he no doubt felt grief over the failure of his brethren to do this, the thing he was constantly challenging them to do. I think that it was in his last few years, when his health had declined, and when he had lived through thirty years of heartache resulting from the division, that he still felt like the "fault was with himself." He no doubt wondered to himself - "would I have been better off to have sided with the Mission Baptists?"
Elder Watson said:
"History teaches us that all nations which have been favored with the word of God have made far greater advances in civilization than those which have not. The history of those countries where the word of God was not known, is a sad one. They were debased by all kinds of superstition and idolatry." (Pg. 418)
This is also a noteworthy statement by the good doctor. Why is that? Because later defenders of the Hardshell faith, men like Elders Lemuel Potter, Claud Cayce, John Daily, would later argue, in debate with those who promoted missions, that the gospel that the missionaries had taken to heathen countries had made them worse off! All one has to do is to read those old debates and see how these Hardshell elders often spoke of the heathen as "worse off" for having had the gospel taken to them! But, one of their greatest forefathers would not agree with their position.
Elder Watson wrote:
"If nothing had been gotten up among the Old Order of Baptists but what can be found in the scriptures there never would have been a Missionary Baptist! Remove from them such things as are not to be found in the word of God, and they would all be converted at once into primitive baptists, who know no rule of faith and practice besides that which is taught in the Holy Scriptures. They acknowledge no human authority in church affairs, no adjuncts to the church, such as Missionary societies, boards, theological schools and the like." (Pg. 426)
Notice again how Elder Watson defends the view that it is the "church" that has "authority" over the matter of executing the "Great Commission." His rebuttal arguments have no force or weight if he does not believe the church has the right and authority to do what the "adjuncts to the church" were doing! Elder Watson was one of the first of those who are called "anti-board" Baptists, later led by Elder J. R. Graves and those who became known as "Landmark Baptists." In fact, many of those in the "anti-mission movement," in the 19th century, became identified with the Calvinistic and Missionary Landmarkers, rather than with the Hardshells. But more on this in upcoming chapters.
Elder Watson wrote further:
"Some I fear suppose that the great doctrine of sovereign grace, predestination, election, and the like, abate in the commission to preach the Gospel to every creature, and assign more power to ministers preaching under it than the text just quoted will admit of." (Pg. 479)
I am sure that this was the main reason that led Dr. Watson to finally "take sides with" the Hardshells. He loved the doctrines of grace, or the "five points of Calvinism," and he believed that these doctrines were being discarded by many Baptists who were supporting the new missionary activities of the day, and for this reason "sided with" the "Old School." One wonders what would have happened had he lived another twenty years, into the 1880's? How would he have confronted men like Potter, Cayce, and Daily? Would he have left the "Old Order" and gone with the Landmarkers? Would he have supported the efforts of Pence, Burnam, and others to "reform" or call back the "Old Baptists" from their extremism?
Elder Watson wrote:
"The Gospel addresses, in the commission, all men, and the whole world. But the doctrine of the difference between the general outward call, and the holy inward calling of God must be taken into consideration as has been already stated." (Pg. 486)
So, we see why Elder Watson chose to side with the "Old Order." He felt like the Mission Baptists were denying Calvinism and that they were not sound in understanding the 4th point in the Calvinian system.
Elder Watson wrote:
"They ('Old School' or "anti-mission Baptists') are charged with indifference about the state of the heathen, because they do not institute Missionary societies for sending the Gospel to them. The things to be inferred from this objection are:
1. That the Church of God, when fully organized on Gospel principles, does not admit of sympathy for the heathen.
2. That some adventitious society must be maintained for that purpose.
3. That they who do not become members of such societies cannot feel any concern for the state of the heathen.
This transfer of action, from the Church to benevolent institutions, for the conversion of Pagans, implies a want of confidence in the divine organization of the Church–indicating also a belief that human benevolence, in its Missionary allotments, can do more for the conversion of the world, than the means, which God has ordained!" (Pages 230,231)
This confirms what I said in the previous chapter. The first Hardshells objected to the mission "boards" and "societies" because it took this work away from the CHURCH. This was what was said by many "Black Rockers" and "Kehukeeites" in the original objections to the "modern missionary schemes of the day."
But, this objection shows that the first Hardshells believed that the work of missions and the fulfilling of the "Great Commission" did not exempt the church! From the statement of Elder Watson it is clear that he objected to it on the basis that it took it away from the church, who ought to be in charge of it. It is clear that he thought the church ought to be in charge of overseeing mission work! This is the "Old Baptist" position.
He also attempts to defend the Hardshells against the charge that their churches did not have any concern for the heathen. It is not to be doubted that Elder Watson had more concern for the heathen than most Hardshells, but he was in an undesirable condition in trying to prove that his "anti-mission" brothers of had any real concern for the state of the heathen.
Elder Claud Cayce, coming almost a generation after Elder Watson, as I have shown, did not want to defend the actual record of the Hardshells on their concern for the heathen. Surely anyone today is in a far worse condition as a defender and apologist for the Hardshell record on the "Great Commission"! Even Elder Watson was forced to admit this was the case, as we shall see, but in this present citation he tries to say that he and others in the "anti-mission movement" did have a real concern for the heathen and for their salvation by the gospel.
The chief error of the Hardshells is their denial that all men are to be commanded and exhorted to repent and believe in Christ for salvation. Yet, this is precisely what the "Great Commission" enjoins upon all! Elder Watson understood this, for he said:
"That the commission extends to such, is apparent from the fact that some believe, and some do not. Those who believe were unbelievers before, and the unbelieving of others can only be predicated of their hearing."
But this is not how the Hardshells have learned to reason on this point, gravitating away from the view of Watson. They believe that men are "believers" BEFORE they hear the gospel! I have discussed this in earlier chapters of this book. But, Elder Watson did realize that the gospel was to be preached to all men, including unbelievers or unsaved people.
He said further:
"What said the prophet? "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." I would just state here, at once, that I have no idea that sinners, dead in tresspasses and sins, will ever believe through the exhortations of the Lord's ministers, any more than that the dry bones would have lived through the prophesying of the prophet, apart from what the Lord did for them. But that fact does not nullify the commission to preach to them, but on the contrary greatly strengthens it. The divine assurance that God's word will prosper in the thing whereunto He hath sent it, affords great encouragement to preach to sinners. If it be said by the objector that they are deaf and cannot hear it, faith replies God can open their ears; if said they are dead, faith again says God will give them life; and thus faith can meet all the objections which can be urged against preaching to the very chief of sinners, and at the same time exclude that Arminianism which some affect to see in a course of this kind. Where is the Arminianism, I would ask, in doing what the Lord has expressly commanded us to do? unless, however, it be by doing these things without faith. It seems to me that two very opposite errors may be indicated here:
1. The Arminian takes the means out of the hands of God, in toto, or in part, and uses them according to His own strength, and they then degenerate into Arminian powers.
2. The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in tresspasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
"Let us learn our duty as ministers, examine our commission, and see how fully it authorizes us, in faith, to exhort the sinner to repent, believing that the Lord can give him repentance; so as to believe, believing that the Lord can give faith." (Pg. 329)
One wonders whether the view of Elder Watson was the majority opinion or the minority? Did the "Antinomians" or "ultraists" compose the majority? If one listens to today's Hardshells, or reads the historical literature that they promote, he would think that all the first opposers of the "mission movement" were just like them in faith and practice. But, the true facts show that this is not true.
What happened in middle Tennessee also happened everywhere else. After the numerous divisions over the "mission question" there were not simply two groups, but three, or perhaps even more. I have emphasized this before in previous chapters. Some who identified themselves with the general movement were opposed more to one thing than to another. Possibly only a third of the first Hardshells were of the "ultraist" variety.
Wrote Elder Wilson Thompson:
"For several years preceding the division in the White-water Association, a difference of opinion was known to exist among the ministry and membership of the association on certain points of doctrine. And as time advanced the differences developed themselves more and more. The point upon which the difference was based, was, “the use and effect of the preached gospel.” One party held the view that the preaching of the gospel was a means of the conversion of sinners; and that it might be effectual to that end, it was necessary that societies and boards of missions should be formed to raise funds and employ and send out men to convert and Christianize the heathen.
Another party believed that in the conversion of sinners God used the preached word as a means or medium through which His spirit operated to that end, but that missionary boards and societies were institutions of men, and had not the sanction of God, and therefore should not be sanctioned by the church and that as the church received all her authority from Christ, as her King, she could not sanction and support institutions of men, as Christian institutions, without a sacrifice of her loyalty to Christ. Neither could the church admit that the institutions of men were adequate to the conversion of sinners or the prosperity of the cause of truth, without impeaching the wisdom of Him who hath declared that He has in the Scriptures throughly furnished the man of God unto all good works.
The other party in the association held the same views as the second on the subject of missions and kindred societies instituted by men, but differed from both the other parties on the use and effect of the preached gospel. They denied that the preaching of the gospel had any power to convert the dead sinner, or to give him life, and declared that man in nature was dead in trespasses and sins, and that as no means could be used to give life to one literally dead, even so no means could be used to give eternal life to those who are dead in sins, that God effects that work of Himself, by His holy Spirit, without means or instruments, and that the gospel is a proclamation of good tidings, of great joy to the soul that is prepared with a hearing ear and an understanding heart to receive it. To those who thus believe it is the power of God unto salvation, and it saves them from the false doctrines of men, and feeds and makes them strong in the truth.
In addition to these differences in views there were some men in the association who had personal difficulties and jealousies that alienated their feelings from each other, who were ready, when the opportunity offered, to seize upon any circumstance to advance their own ends or injure those against whom they held feelings of prejudice. There was nearly an equal number of churches on either side of the parties, after deducting the missionaries, who constituted but a small part of the association. It was ascertained, as the discussion of these differences progressed, that Elder John Sparks and Elder Thompson held different views on the subject of means, Elder Sparks holding the doctrine of means, and in opposition to missions, and Elder Thompson opposing the doctrine of means and missions both." (Autobiography of Wilson Thompson pg. 324,325)
Thus it is a falsehood to say that all those who were part of the "anti-mission movement," and who called themselves "Old School," were united in their beliefs regarding the use of means in regeneration.
From what Thompson has said it can be safely said that less than half of those in the movement were of the "ultraist" variety. From Thompson's own testimony he shows that the majority of those in the Whitewater Association believed in gospel means; And, that only half (or less - SG) of those who rejected the "modern missionary schemes" were "ultraists."
"And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16: 15, 16. The unscriptural sayings which have been predicated of this text, have done much heretical mischief among the Old Baptists. Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
"Our not exhorting sinners to repent and believe, is a gross deviation from the gospel rule, and a palpable perversion of the great commission under which we preach. Let us pursue the revealed method of God, and not the assumed one which we now follow. If ultraist, in their blindness, call us Arminians, let us bear it for the truth's sake. We had better suffer ourselves than deviate from our commission. I know I shall have to dispute every inch of ground here; that many are ready to catch at my words, and dispute all I may write; therefore I appeal to "the law and to the testimony."
Again, some observations here are in order. "Many are ready to catch my words and dispute all I may write." I don't doubt this! I wish more historical documents were available that recorded the debate that went on between these various parties!
As I have pointed out in previous chapters, Elder Watson, at the end of his book, called upon all the brothers in the anti-mission movement to come together and debate openly these things in a new paper called "The Herald of Truth." I am guessing that his paper "The Old Baptist Banner" had passed out of existence and this new paper took its place.
After the death of Elder Watson, did this debate take place? Who has any copies of the old "Herald of Truth"? What was Elder Beebe's response to the writings and beliefs of Elder Watson? What did Elder Clark think of Elder Watson's work? These are important questions for any Hardshell "historian" and yet none seem to want to know the answers! Of what are they afraid? We know that Elder Watson and Elder Grigg Thompson were close ministerial associates and thus shared many of these views. We certainly know that Grigg Thompson preached to dead sinners for I have cited him much in my chapters on "Addresses to the Lost."
I will show in upcoming chapters, dealing more with the finer points of the history of the "Primitive Baptists," wherein I review their written histories and historical "claims," and the subsequent divisions over means, Sunday Schools, theological training and financial support, etc., that the two groups, mentioned by Thompson, continued side by side for a number of years, but who were struggling in the womb of the new denomination as Esau and Jacob. Though they were initially together in their opposition to mission methods, yet they were not united on the use of means in the new birth, and they were at odds over whether they were going to go to one extreme themselves. It will be shown that this separation of the twins did not take place till the end of the 19th century, and into the 20th.
Elder Watson continues:
"How did the first Baptist preach? "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." To whom were these words addressed? to the pentitent or impenitent? To the impenitent of course. Who gave repentance? The Lord. How did Christ? "Repent ye and believe the gospel." How did the twelve? "They went out and preached that men shoud repent." (Pg. 517, 518)
"Were all of John's hearers converted before he said, "repent ye"? Were those (already-SG) repenting and believing to who Christ preached repentance and faith? Were those addressed by the twelve? Were the Athenians? What was Simon's state? Were those "quickened" who were bidden and refused to come to the feast? These questions, when properly answered, show most conclusively that we should preach repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, "to every creature"--to "all men everywhere." If we say our preaching is to the (already-SG) called of the Lord, and to them only, and make no distinction between the many called and the few chosen, we will involve the tenet of universalism."
I have pointed out in previous chapters, like Elder Watson, that the teachings of the "ultraists" and "anti-means" Hardshells have in fact been the leading cause of many of their denomination embracing Universalism. But, more on this too in upcoming chapters.
Elder Watson said:
"For if we preach only to the "quickened," all must be in that state, as our commission and work embraces "every creature." The commission includes those who believe not, as subjects of our address, as plainly as those who believe. Mark 16:16" (Pg. 519)
"The objection is that all such are "dead in tresspasses and sins," and that we know not who they are, and even if we did, our preaching would not reach their state. But our preaching does in one sense, when we preach to all unregenerated persons alike, for with us there are no evidences of distinction, we do so in faith, believing that the Lord knoweth them that are His; hence, our commission includes "every creature," but the calling of the Lord, the chosen few...Their connection with each other involves, in the plainest manner, the duty of preaching to every creature "repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." The Lord has ordained this way; our violation of it in the 19th century will not cause it to fail; others will do the work; it needs must be done; and this may be the cause why so few are coming into our churches! We have violated our commission. "Let us search and try our ways, and turn to the Lord."" (Pgs. 519, 520)
"This violation of our commission has engendered a spirit of coldness and indifference about those yet unbrought; by some they are not cared for, prayed for, nor preached unto; this spirit in like manner extends to the "babes" in Christ, the sheep, and the sheep only, are fed. Let us examine our commission again, and search out the things therein included." (Pg. 521)
Dr. Carey continues:
"SECONDLY, If the command of Christ to teach all nations be confined to the apostles, then all such ordinary ministers who have endeavoured to carry the gospel to the heathens, have acted without a warrant, and run before they were sent. Yea, and though God has promised the most glorious things to the heathen world by sending his gospel to them, yet whoever goes first, or indeed at all, with that message, unless he have a new and special commission from heaven, must go without any authority for so doing."
Again, it is to be observed how Carey refers to a belief that some had raised, in his day, against attempting to fulfill the Commission. They gave as their reason that the "Great Commission" was given only to the apostles. Thus, the Hardshells can at least claim some in the latter 18th century as favoring their view. In the first chapter in this series I cited Hardshell founding father, Elder Gilbert Beebe, who took this view. He believed that the Commission was given strictly to the apostles, and that they fulfilled it before they died, and that all other ministers since receive a special commission to go and preach and baptize.
I suspect that Beebe was well acquainted with the writings of Carey, and even these words. I am sure that Beebe saw, as Carey pointed out, that there are but two possible views regarding having "warrant" to go, preach, teach, make disciples, and to baptize. Either the minister or church receives it from the "Great Commission" or some other personalized Commission. Beebe chose the latter.
Other Hardshells have disagreed with Beebe, for the most part, agreeing with Carey, one of the men they love to hate, believing that the "Great Commission" WAS what gave warrant to ministers to preach, and that they did not all therefore need special Commissions. What the Hardshells have done, for the most part, is to say that the "Great Commission" was given to the "apostles AS REPRESENTING the gospel ministry."
I have already shown how this idea is false. There is much more weight of testimony from scripture and Baptist history to demonstrate that the group spoken to was not a ministerial group, but to a group of disciples.
Hardshells believe that no ordinary disciple has any warrant to preach the gospel, that is, to tell others about the story of Christ. This is a great error on their part and one I have shown to be against scripture and Baptist teachings, the confessions, and writings of our able ministers. I have already cited numerous scriptures that disprove this damnable notion. In the last chapter of the bible it is said - "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Revelation 22: 17 KJV) The church, yea, every individual disciple, may say to sinners "come"! And certainly this invitation to "come" to Christ and the "water of life" requires that the one giving the invitation explain a little of the nature of the invitation, or preach the gospel.
Carey continues:
"THIRDLY, If the command of Christ to teach all nations extend only to the apostles, then, doubtless, the promise of the divine presence in this work must be so limited; but this is worded in such a manner as expressly precludes such an idea. Lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world."
I think most Hardshells acknowledge the weight of this argument. It is clear that Jesus anticipated that the "Great Commission" would extend till the coming of Christ and the "end of the world (age)."
Next, I wish to cite some excepts from Dr. (Elder) John M. Watson, whom I have already referred to in earlier chapters in this book. Elder Watson, from middle Tennessee, was a leader in the "anti-mission" or "Old School" movement in Tennessee from the very beginning of the division between the so-called New School and the Old School. He was one of several leading Elders in the movement which began with the Kehukee Declaration of 1827 and the Black Rock Address of 1832.
Elder Watson was the second editor of one of the very first religious newspapers that were begun by the anti-mission forces immediately after the "split" with the "Missionaries." From historical records we learn that "The Old Baptist Banner" was commenced in Nashville, in 1838 and was edited at first by Rev. Washington Lowe (who was apparently a lawyer in Springfield), but Elder Watson soon took it over and became its leading promoter.
This paper seems to have been begun to be a counter voice to the previously begun Missionary Baptist publication called "The Baptist Banner." I have searched in vain to find any library that has any copies or information of this periodical. I believe that this periodical, if bound volumns could be found, will reveal much about the genesis of the "anti-missionary movement" and would be of great historical benefit.
Later, towards the end of his life, Dr. Watson published his famous book called "The Old Baptist Test," from which I have already cited (my friend Bob Ross also has cited from this book). I have seen various dates given for its first publication, the earliest information being that it was published in Nashville by Republican Banner Press in 1855. Other dates are nearer the end of his life, around 1865 or 1866. It also appears that Elder R. W. Fain, who wrote the introduction to the book, actually finished the book for the ailing Dr. Watson. But, I will be having more to say about Elder Watson in future chapters dealing with "Hardshell Founding Fathers." I have already cited him to show that many of the first Hardshells did believe in gospel means in regeneration, and their being part of the movement was due to their opposition to "methods" of evangelism, and against mission "boards" and "societies" outside of the control of the local church.
Elder Watson wrote:
"In our separation from the Missionaries about 1836, I had to bear many unkind reproaches and misrepresentations, but, thank God, I was able to bear up under all of them. I was very anxious that we should adopt some plan consonant with the Holy Scriptures by means of which a separation might be avoided. To that end I worked assiduously for sometime, but it became very apparent that it was impracticable, and I then took a decided stand with the Old Order; then came aspersions instead of compliments as before." (Old Baptist Test, page 36)
This is quite interesting and noteworthy. First, when Elder Watson mentions the date of division over the question of missions, in the year 1836, he was referring to the time of the division in the churches in middle Tennessee and parts of Kentucky. Second, when he mentions his efforts at avoiding a division, he shows how unlike he was to the Hardshell "ultraists" who were also part of the movement.
This citation shows that Dr. Watson was not opposed to missions, done by the church and ministry, but was only opposed to certain "methods" then being advanced. Also, as we shall see, all references to "doctrine" being the issue concerned only the question of the extent of the atonement, Watson believing that too many of the "Missionary Baptists" were denying election, limited atonement, and other important "doctrines of grace," and were not preaching predestination as they should. But, he never once denounced the view that sinners were born again and saved through the preaching of the gospel and by faith in it. The fact is, as I have shown in previous chapters, and will demonstrate further in this one, Elder John Watson, together with Elder John Clark, another important early leader in the "anti-mission" movement, believed in means in the eternal salvation of sinners.
Also, the final decision of Elder Watson to "side with the Old Order of Baptists," or with those who came to be better known as "Hardshells," was not one that ultimately brought him peace of mind, as I think anyone familiar with his life can testify. Before he departed this life he left scathing rebukes to the "Old Order Baptists" about their neglect of the "Great Commission."
Did his Hardshell brethren ever show the Mission Baptist how to properly conduct missions according to the "bible plan"? No, sadly, what Elder Watson desired and called upon his Hardshell brethren to do, they rather ignored and spent all their time decrying what others were doing when they were doing nothing themselves.
Elder Watson wrote:
"It has been a constant prediction among the Old Order of Baptists for more than thirty years past, that these institutions would eventually do great injury, by breaking and perverting Gospel truths. The writer can most truthfully say, that he tried again and again to have fellowship for these things, seemingly so expedient, and for those who were so zealously engaged in them, but he could not, and was often tempted to fear that the fault was with himself." (page 70)
Again, this is most interesting. Elder Watson, I am sure, did sincerely try to avoid a division over the question of mission methodology. I really believe that he thought that the "Old Order" could win the war by "leading the way" in showing other Baptists "how to do it." Sadly, in writing his book just shortly before he died, he no doubt felt grief over the failure of his brethren to do this, the thing he was constantly challenging them to do. I think that it was in his last few years, when his health had declined, and when he had lived through thirty years of heartache resulting from the division, that he still felt like the "fault was with himself." He no doubt wondered to himself - "would I have been better off to have sided with the Mission Baptists?"
Elder Watson said:
"History teaches us that all nations which have been favored with the word of God have made far greater advances in civilization than those which have not. The history of those countries where the word of God was not known, is a sad one. They were debased by all kinds of superstition and idolatry." (Pg. 418)
This is also a noteworthy statement by the good doctor. Why is that? Because later defenders of the Hardshell faith, men like Elders Lemuel Potter, Claud Cayce, John Daily, would later argue, in debate with those who promoted missions, that the gospel that the missionaries had taken to heathen countries had made them worse off! All one has to do is to read those old debates and see how these Hardshell elders often spoke of the heathen as "worse off" for having had the gospel taken to them! But, one of their greatest forefathers would not agree with their position.
Elder Watson wrote:
"If nothing had been gotten up among the Old Order of Baptists but what can be found in the scriptures there never would have been a Missionary Baptist! Remove from them such things as are not to be found in the word of God, and they would all be converted at once into primitive baptists, who know no rule of faith and practice besides that which is taught in the Holy Scriptures. They acknowledge no human authority in church affairs, no adjuncts to the church, such as Missionary societies, boards, theological schools and the like." (Pg. 426)
Notice again how Elder Watson defends the view that it is the "church" that has "authority" over the matter of executing the "Great Commission." His rebuttal arguments have no force or weight if he does not believe the church has the right and authority to do what the "adjuncts to the church" were doing! Elder Watson was one of the first of those who are called "anti-board" Baptists, later led by Elder J. R. Graves and those who became known as "Landmark Baptists." In fact, many of those in the "anti-mission movement," in the 19th century, became identified with the Calvinistic and Missionary Landmarkers, rather than with the Hardshells. But more on this in upcoming chapters.
Elder Watson wrote further:
"Some I fear suppose that the great doctrine of sovereign grace, predestination, election, and the like, abate in the commission to preach the Gospel to every creature, and assign more power to ministers preaching under it than the text just quoted will admit of." (Pg. 479)
I am sure that this was the main reason that led Dr. Watson to finally "take sides with" the Hardshells. He loved the doctrines of grace, or the "five points of Calvinism," and he believed that these doctrines were being discarded by many Baptists who were supporting the new missionary activities of the day, and for this reason "sided with" the "Old School." One wonders what would have happened had he lived another twenty years, into the 1880's? How would he have confronted men like Potter, Cayce, and Daily? Would he have left the "Old Order" and gone with the Landmarkers? Would he have supported the efforts of Pence, Burnam, and others to "reform" or call back the "Old Baptists" from their extremism?
Elder Watson wrote:
"The Gospel addresses, in the commission, all men, and the whole world. But the doctrine of the difference between the general outward call, and the holy inward calling of God must be taken into consideration as has been already stated." (Pg. 486)
So, we see why Elder Watson chose to side with the "Old Order." He felt like the Mission Baptists were denying Calvinism and that they were not sound in understanding the 4th point in the Calvinian system.
Elder Watson wrote:
"They ('Old School' or "anti-mission Baptists') are charged with indifference about the state of the heathen, because they do not institute Missionary societies for sending the Gospel to them. The things to be inferred from this objection are:
1. That the Church of God, when fully organized on Gospel principles, does not admit of sympathy for the heathen.
2. That some adventitious society must be maintained for that purpose.
3. That they who do not become members of such societies cannot feel any concern for the state of the heathen.
This transfer of action, from the Church to benevolent institutions, for the conversion of Pagans, implies a want of confidence in the divine organization of the Church–indicating also a belief that human benevolence, in its Missionary allotments, can do more for the conversion of the world, than the means, which God has ordained!" (Pages 230,231)
This confirms what I said in the previous chapter. The first Hardshells objected to the mission "boards" and "societies" because it took this work away from the CHURCH. This was what was said by many "Black Rockers" and "Kehukeeites" in the original objections to the "modern missionary schemes of the day."
But, this objection shows that the first Hardshells believed that the work of missions and the fulfilling of the "Great Commission" did not exempt the church! From the statement of Elder Watson it is clear that he objected to it on the basis that it took it away from the church, who ought to be in charge of it. It is clear that he thought the church ought to be in charge of overseeing mission work! This is the "Old Baptist" position.
He also attempts to defend the Hardshells against the charge that their churches did not have any concern for the heathen. It is not to be doubted that Elder Watson had more concern for the heathen than most Hardshells, but he was in an undesirable condition in trying to prove that his "anti-mission" brothers of had any real concern for the state of the heathen.
Elder Claud Cayce, coming almost a generation after Elder Watson, as I have shown, did not want to defend the actual record of the Hardshells on their concern for the heathen. Surely anyone today is in a far worse condition as a defender and apologist for the Hardshell record on the "Great Commission"! Even Elder Watson was forced to admit this was the case, as we shall see, but in this present citation he tries to say that he and others in the "anti-mission movement" did have a real concern for the heathen and for their salvation by the gospel.
The chief error of the Hardshells is their denial that all men are to be commanded and exhorted to repent and believe in Christ for salvation. Yet, this is precisely what the "Great Commission" enjoins upon all! Elder Watson understood this, for he said:
"That the commission extends to such, is apparent from the fact that some believe, and some do not. Those who believe were unbelievers before, and the unbelieving of others can only be predicated of their hearing."
But this is not how the Hardshells have learned to reason on this point, gravitating away from the view of Watson. They believe that men are "believers" BEFORE they hear the gospel! I have discussed this in earlier chapters of this book. But, Elder Watson did realize that the gospel was to be preached to all men, including unbelievers or unsaved people.
He said further:
"What said the prophet? "O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." I would just state here, at once, that I have no idea that sinners, dead in tresspasses and sins, will ever believe through the exhortations of the Lord's ministers, any more than that the dry bones would have lived through the prophesying of the prophet, apart from what the Lord did for them. But that fact does not nullify the commission to preach to them, but on the contrary greatly strengthens it. The divine assurance that God's word will prosper in the thing whereunto He hath sent it, affords great encouragement to preach to sinners. If it be said by the objector that they are deaf and cannot hear it, faith replies God can open their ears; if said they are dead, faith again says God will give them life; and thus faith can meet all the objections which can be urged against preaching to the very chief of sinners, and at the same time exclude that Arminianism which some affect to see in a course of this kind. Where is the Arminianism, I would ask, in doing what the Lord has expressly commanded us to do? unless, however, it be by doing these things without faith. It seems to me that two very opposite errors may be indicated here:
1. The Arminian takes the means out of the hands of God, in toto, or in part, and uses them according to His own strength, and they then degenerate into Arminian powers.
2. The Antinomian will not regard any thing in the light of means, and in his doctrine will not allow even the Lord to employ them, says that the Lord is not dependent on means, and can do all His work without them. Now, the truth is, had it been the will or the way of the Lord, He could have breathed upon the dry bones as well without the prophesying of the prophet as with it, and could have given repentance to John's converts, or to Paul's, without their preaching; but their preaching to such, even to those dead in tresspasses and sins, had been included in the divine plan, and it needs must be done, let it be termed means, the will or way of the Lord, as you please." ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
There are several observations that need to be made here. First, let me remind the reader that I cited statements like this in earlier chapters dealing with the gospel means position and in those chapters titled "Addresses to the Lost." I have cited from Dr. Watson many times to show he believed that the elect were called to life and salvation by the gospel and that he recognized the "Hardshell" or "Antinomian" element in the movement as a heresy worse than Arminianism. He repudiated this Hardshell wing of the movement that refused to preach to the dead in sin and who styled such apostolic preaching as "Armininism." He certainly saw how the story of Ezekiel and the Valley of Dry Bones destroyed all the "logic" and "argumentation" of the Hardshells regarding means.
Dr. Watson was a man not at home with the Arminian missionaries, or the "board Baptists," but neither was he at home with the "ultraists" or "hyperists," as he called them. The above citation demonstrates this to be the case.
Elder Watson had to fight both the Campbellites and the ultraist Hardshells in his day. You can see where he attacks both heresies. He rejected both the "word alone" and the "Spirit alone" view of the new birth.
Elder Watson said:"Let us learn our duty as ministers, examine our commission, and see how fully it authorizes us, in faith, to exhort the sinner to repent, believing that the Lord can give him repentance; so as to believe, believing that the Lord can give faith." (Pg. 329)
One wonders whether the view of Elder Watson was the majority opinion or the minority? Did the "Antinomians" or "ultraists" compose the majority? If one listens to today's Hardshells, or reads the historical literature that they promote, he would think that all the first opposers of the "mission movement" were just like them in faith and practice. But, the true facts show that this is not true.
What happened in middle Tennessee also happened everywhere else. After the numerous divisions over the "mission question" there were not simply two groups, but three, or perhaps even more. I have emphasized this before in previous chapters. Some who identified themselves with the general movement were opposed more to one thing than to another. Possibly only a third of the first Hardshells were of the "ultraist" variety.
Wrote Elder Wilson Thompson:
"For several years preceding the division in the White-water Association, a difference of opinion was known to exist among the ministry and membership of the association on certain points of doctrine. And as time advanced the differences developed themselves more and more. The point upon which the difference was based, was, “the use and effect of the preached gospel.” One party held the view that the preaching of the gospel was a means of the conversion of sinners; and that it might be effectual to that end, it was necessary that societies and boards of missions should be formed to raise funds and employ and send out men to convert and Christianize the heathen.
Another party believed that in the conversion of sinners God used the preached word as a means or medium through which His spirit operated to that end, but that missionary boards and societies were institutions of men, and had not the sanction of God, and therefore should not be sanctioned by the church and that as the church received all her authority from Christ, as her King, she could not sanction and support institutions of men, as Christian institutions, without a sacrifice of her loyalty to Christ. Neither could the church admit that the institutions of men were adequate to the conversion of sinners or the prosperity of the cause of truth, without impeaching the wisdom of Him who hath declared that He has in the Scriptures throughly furnished the man of God unto all good works.
The other party in the association held the same views as the second on the subject of missions and kindred societies instituted by men, but differed from both the other parties on the use and effect of the preached gospel. They denied that the preaching of the gospel had any power to convert the dead sinner, or to give him life, and declared that man in nature was dead in trespasses and sins, and that as no means could be used to give life to one literally dead, even so no means could be used to give eternal life to those who are dead in sins, that God effects that work of Himself, by His holy Spirit, without means or instruments, and that the gospel is a proclamation of good tidings, of great joy to the soul that is prepared with a hearing ear and an understanding heart to receive it. To those who thus believe it is the power of God unto salvation, and it saves them from the false doctrines of men, and feeds and makes them strong in the truth.
In addition to these differences in views there were some men in the association who had personal difficulties and jealousies that alienated their feelings from each other, who were ready, when the opportunity offered, to seize upon any circumstance to advance their own ends or injure those against whom they held feelings of prejudice. There was nearly an equal number of churches on either side of the parties, after deducting the missionaries, who constituted but a small part of the association. It was ascertained, as the discussion of these differences progressed, that Elder John Sparks and Elder Thompson held different views on the subject of means, Elder Sparks holding the doctrine of means, and in opposition to missions, and Elder Thompson opposing the doctrine of means and missions both." (Autobiography of Wilson Thompson pg. 324,325)
Thus it is a falsehood to say that all those who were part of the "anti-mission movement," and who called themselves "Old School," were united in their beliefs regarding the use of means in regeneration.
From what Thompson has said it can be safely said that less than half of those in the movement were of the "ultraist" variety. From Thompson's own testimony he shows that the majority of those in the Whitewater Association believed in gospel means; And, that only half (or less - SG) of those who rejected the "modern missionary schemes" were "ultraists."
Elder John R. Daily later would write about this division in the Whitewater Association, even including it in the famous "Mt. Carmel Church Trial," although the Hardshells who have transcribed much of excerpts from this trial to the internet, yet they did not include this and other important historical documentation. Nevertheless, I have read in other writings by Elder Daily where he says that the division in the Whitewater Association, between the "Sparks faction" and the "Thompson faction," was one "that should have been avoided." It seems that Daily was saying that the ultraists could fellowship, in the beginning, with their brethren who believed in means as long as they were anti "board" and anti "society."
I have also pointed out how there were sub sects within the anti-mission movement who may have been opposed to theological schools, for instance, and a few other things that were associated with the new mission movement, but who nevertheless did not "throw out the baby with the bath water," and who did not go to an opposite extreme, and who continued to believe in gospel means.
Elder Watson wrote:"And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16: 15, 16. The unscriptural sayings which have been predicated of this text, have done much heretical mischief among the Old Baptists. Some of our ultraists are occasionally heard to say, in our pulpits, that they have no authority to preach to sinners, and they seem to glory in their fancied exemption. Nothing appears to give them greater offence, or savors more of Arminianism with them, than for sinners to be exhorted to repent!" ("Old Baptist Test," pages 327, 328)
"Our not exhorting sinners to repent and believe, is a gross deviation from the gospel rule, and a palpable perversion of the great commission under which we preach. Let us pursue the revealed method of God, and not the assumed one which we now follow. If ultraist, in their blindness, call us Arminians, let us bear it for the truth's sake. We had better suffer ourselves than deviate from our commission. I know I shall have to dispute every inch of ground here; that many are ready to catch at my words, and dispute all I may write; therefore I appeal to "the law and to the testimony."
Again, some observations here are in order. "Many are ready to catch my words and dispute all I may write." I don't doubt this! I wish more historical documents were available that recorded the debate that went on between these various parties!
As I have pointed out in previous chapters, Elder Watson, at the end of his book, called upon all the brothers in the anti-mission movement to come together and debate openly these things in a new paper called "The Herald of Truth." I am guessing that his paper "The Old Baptist Banner" had passed out of existence and this new paper took its place.
After the death of Elder Watson, did this debate take place? Who has any copies of the old "Herald of Truth"? What was Elder Beebe's response to the writings and beliefs of Elder Watson? What did Elder Clark think of Elder Watson's work? These are important questions for any Hardshell "historian" and yet none seem to want to know the answers! Of what are they afraid? We know that Elder Watson and Elder Grigg Thompson were close ministerial associates and thus shared many of these views. We certainly know that Grigg Thompson preached to dead sinners for I have cited him much in my chapters on "Addresses to the Lost."
I will show in upcoming chapters, dealing more with the finer points of the history of the "Primitive Baptists," wherein I review their written histories and historical "claims," and the subsequent divisions over means, Sunday Schools, theological training and financial support, etc., that the two groups, mentioned by Thompson, continued side by side for a number of years, but who were struggling in the womb of the new denomination as Esau and Jacob. Though they were initially together in their opposition to mission methods, yet they were not united on the use of means in the new birth, and they were at odds over whether they were going to go to one extreme themselves. It will be shown that this separation of the twins did not take place till the end of the 19th century, and into the 20th.
Elder Watson continues:
"How did the first Baptist preach? "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." To whom were these words addressed? to the pentitent or impenitent? To the impenitent of course. Who gave repentance? The Lord. How did Christ? "Repent ye and believe the gospel." How did the twelve? "They went out and preached that men shoud repent." (Pg. 517, 518)
"Were all of John's hearers converted before he said, "repent ye"? Were those (already-SG) repenting and believing to who Christ preached repentance and faith? Were those addressed by the twelve? Were the Athenians? What was Simon's state? Were those "quickened" who were bidden and refused to come to the feast? These questions, when properly answered, show most conclusively that we should preach repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, "to every creature"--to "all men everywhere." If we say our preaching is to the (already-SG) called of the Lord, and to them only, and make no distinction between the many called and the few chosen, we will involve the tenet of universalism."
I have pointed out in previous chapters, like Elder Watson, that the teachings of the "ultraists" and "anti-means" Hardshells have in fact been the leading cause of many of their denomination embracing Universalism. But, more on this too in upcoming chapters.
Elder Watson said:
"For if we preach only to the "quickened," all must be in that state, as our commission and work embraces "every creature." The commission includes those who believe not, as subjects of our address, as plainly as those who believe. Mark 16:16" (Pg. 519)
Why are today's Hardshells so blind to this simple argument? It can be put into a simple syllogism.
1. The gospel is only to be preached to the regenerated (Hardshell view).
2. The gospel is to be preached to every creature. (Bible)
3. Therefore every creature is regenerated. (Universalism)
Dr. Watson continued:"The objection is that all such are "dead in tresspasses and sins," and that we know not who they are, and even if we did, our preaching would not reach their state. But our preaching does in one sense, when we preach to all unregenerated persons alike, for with us there are no evidences of distinction, we do so in faith, believing that the Lord knoweth them that are His; hence, our commission includes "every creature," but the calling of the Lord, the chosen few...Their connection with each other involves, in the plainest manner, the duty of preaching to every creature "repentance toward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." The Lord has ordained this way; our violation of it in the 19th century will not cause it to fail; others will do the work; it needs must be done; and this may be the cause why so few are coming into our churches! We have violated our commission. "Let us search and try our ways, and turn to the Lord."" (Pgs. 519, 520)
"Our violation of it in the 19th century"! What an indictment! No wonder Elder Throgmorten and others have cited these words from Dr. Watson in their debates with the "ultraists" and in regard to their "claims" of being "primitive" and "original"!
Elder Watson did not think their view was scriptural nor Baptistic! If Elder Watson were alive today his charge would still be the same - "WE HAVE VIOLATED OUR COMMISSION"!
And, what is the ill effect of this grave departure from the faith, and from obedience to the "Great Commission"? Our churches are dying, he says! Does he believe that the "Great Commission" will fail to be fulfilled because of the "ultraist's" failure to do so? No! He affirms that "others will do the work"! And, when we look the wide world over, and record how many today have bibles in their own language, and who have heard the story of Jesus and the cross, can we thank the Hardshell "ultraist" at all? Have not "others" done the work, my Hardshell brothers?
Elder Watson called for a reform, a "return" or a "repentance" on these things. Did any heed his calls? Yes, some did, for some made attempts after his death to continue to call the "ultraists" back to their spiritual senses, and to keep them from the extremism that they were speedily acquiring as their characteristic feature. But, I will talk more about these reform movements and calls to repentance in future chapters, as I have said.
Elder Watson wrote further:"This violation of our commission has engendered a spirit of coldness and indifference about those yet unbrought; by some they are not cared for, prayed for, nor preached unto; this spirit in like manner extends to the "babes" in Christ, the sheep, and the sheep only, are fed. Let us examine our commission again, and search out the things therein included." (Pg. 521)
This seems to contradict what he wrote earlier when he was trying to defend his brethren against not having any real concern for the "heathen." But, here he seems to acknowledge that the charge is true. Notice he says "our commission," showing that he did not believe it to be fulfilled, or for the apostles alone, but for the church and ministry till Jesus returns.
He says further:
"Whenever one of our ministers ventures to call on sinners to repent and believe the gospel (like Elder Grigg Thompson did regularly! - SG), he begins directly afterwards to explain by preaching the strong doctrine of repentance, instead of following up the commandment, with the exhortations, warnings and threatenings of the Bible as he should, in conformity with the divine method. His aim of desire seems to be rather to convince his brethren that he is not an Arminian, than to exhort sinners to repent." (Pg. 522)
No doubt it was this "fear" of being called an "Arminian" that the "ultraists" used in the wars that followed the death of Elder Watson. They used intimidation to rid all preaching of exhortations to the dead in sins.
Elder Watson said:
"These deviations, great, grievous and palpable as they are, do not disprove my propositions, that the Old Baptist ministers preach more divinity than those of all other denominations. With their acknowledged deviations, omissions and faults, they compare more favorably with the ministerial characteristics of the Bible, than all others. The general difference is, that we have omitted a part, without changing, while they have not only omitted many things, but also changed many!" (Pg. 522, 523)
Oh how I am sure that this is what Elder Watson convinced himself was the case! Even though it was not the case! I believe his conscience bothered him to his grave over the split over missions and means. He knew he could not undue what had been done. He at once condemns the movement and justifies it at the same time! But, all said, Elder Watson and Elder Clark were no doubt the sanest and soundest of the first generation of Hardshells.
Elder Watson said further:
"What in conclusion, shall I say? What saith the scriptures? They have already spoken, and what more can I add? Only a prayer that their truths may prevail over the hearts of those who deviate from gospel rules in preaching; that the last call unto them that are without may be found; that the spirit of exhortation so long quenched, may revive; that the literal door of the gospel, so long closed, may be opened; that practical godliness, too much neglected in our pulpits and lives, may be taught and maintained; and that we may all be right willing to work faithfully in our ministry, even at a "peradventure," "that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us."" (Pg. 523)
Those are some serious departures from the faith that Dr. Watson mentions! He's calling for a Hardshell "revival"! He sees how the apostolic preaching of the gospel to sinners has vanished from their pulpits! What an indictment! Why did he stay connected with such people? Surely he asked himself that in his remaining years? He says these "ultraist" brethren had "literally shut the door of the gospel" to sinners! How could he stay with such people? What did Jesus say of those who "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men"? And, the preaching of "practical godliness" through apostolic exhortation was gone!
Dr. Watson says:
"The twelve went out and also preached, that men should repent. It is to be greatly regretted that any of our preachers should have supposed that their commission did not extend to sinners, and that it was not consonant with sound doctrine to exhort them to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. How could this error ever have been entertained for a moment, with the strong bible precept, the plain example of Christ and his disciples before them?"
Well, amen! Thank God that I was able to see the truth in all those bible precepts and examples! All of which taught contrary to Hardshellism. I fully demonstrated the truth of what Elder Watson here affirmed in my series "Addresses to the Lost."
He wrote further:
"The very commission itself assures us that some would not believe, and yet includes them in the gospel address. It is in this and similar ways that the spirit of exhortation has been grieved and lost in our pulpits. This shows the great propriety of rightly dividing the word of God, and not shunning to declare all of it--to feed the lambs, to feed the sheep, to exhort all, every creature to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ...If our Old Baptist system be right, it will be found in agreement with every text, and if we have to alter or abridge the commission to preach the gospel, it is plain evidence of an error among us." (Pg. 535)
It must be here observed that this was very prophetic of the good doctor. The history of the Hardshell denomination since Elder Watson's death has demonstrated that they did in fact "alter" and "abridge the commission" by coming up with weird and strange interpretations to give to the "Great Commission," some of which I have myself demonstrated thus far in this series, and that this altering and abridging of the Commission was proof that there was serious "error among us." God brought me to a confession of this error. Will any other Hardshells do the same?
Elder Watson said furtrher:
"The Lord has plainly revealed the great truth, that all christians are saved by grace, but in our predestinarian ultraisms we are too little inclined to study the Lord's way of saving His people; His plan as connected with earthly things, signs, means, methods, or what you please to term them. The Antinomian affects to despise them because the Arminian perverts them. Both are wrong. If it be the Lord's method to have us say to sinners dead in tresspasses and sins, repent and believe, we should practice it. Our exhorting sinners to repent and believe, is according to the Lord's plan, and how can we reject it, or neglect it, without the very consequences which have followed. Our commission, alas! brethren, has been narrowed down to the words "feed my sheep."
Again, he is "right on the money"! And, sad to say, the "consequences" of the Hardshells "violating" and perverting the "Great Commission" have increased exponentially over time! Every Hardshell who happens to read these words, writtin about 140 years ago, knows them to be descriptive of the history of the Hardshells.
Dr. Watson continues:
"To exhort sinners to repent does not conflict with the doctrine that God alone can give life and repentance; or to believe does not conflict with the truth that faith is the gift of God; nor do the exhortations, warnings and threatenings oppose the doctrine that the believer is kept by the power of God; no more indeed than if it were now said that the leper's cure was not of God, because he bathed in Jordan; that the bringing forth of fruits meet for repentance was not of God, because John exhorted them to repent. Our ultraists would then have said, why bathe in Jordan, as God only can cure the leprosy?" (Pg. 536)
"The very considerations which in their estimation amount to objections, should, on the contrary, be regarded as inducements to preach in that way. No one should preach the gospel, without the faith of the gospel; he should believe that the Lord gives the blessings of the gospel, even to those who oppose it--God may peradventure give them repentance to the acknowledging of the its truths. We preach according to a peradventure--many are called in that way, but few are chosen--many hear outwardly, but few inwardly." (Pg. 536)
"We call on sinners to awake from the sleep of death by faith, believing that God will give them life; to repent because he has promised to give repentance; to believe because He gives faith, to persevere because He is the finisher of our faith. Shall we give up this part of the work of the ministry because it has been Armianized, and call all Arminians who carry it out? Faith divests all these things of Arminianism; faith which has regard to what the Lord will do, and not a false trust in what we may do ourselves." (Pg. 537)
"Our system should not only embrace the doctrine of salvation by grace, but also the method or way of grace. The way of grace is to call on sinners to live as well as to give life, to exhort them to repent, as well as to give repentance, to exhort unbelievers to believe as well as to give faith. It both leads by the spirit, and exhorts by the word." (Pg. 537)
"But alas! Where are our exhorters? They are characters almost unknown among us. Where is the preacher who stops in his ultra doctrinal course to exhort either saint or sinner? Some particular dogma must be proved by a perversion of revealed truth; the sincere milk of the word is withheld, strong meats are poisoned, and the great spiritual interest of the congregation is disregarded--all this, and even more, the peace and well being of the household of faith is broken up, if necessary, to establish some ultra tenet." (Pg. 537)
"But to return: after all that has been preached and written on the subject of means, the whole doctrine resolves itself into this truth, that means are nothing more or less than the ways or methods of the Lord in doing the things which He has purposed. He could do the same things by any other methods or ways were he disposed so to act, or without any means at all; at least without such as involve human acts." (Pg. 537, 538)
"We believe the Lord can save sinners without our preaching to them, but that does not excuse us from saying to them, repent ye and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; that He can save them without water baptism or the Lord's supper, but that He does not authorize us to dispense with them. But verily we have deviated so far from the Bible in our views and feeling, if one were to call on sinners to repent, in the earnest, warm and emphatic way, which Christ and His disciples did, he would be regarded as an Arminian." (Pg. 538)
"But until the spirit of exhortation shall revive, and cease to be vexed, grieved and quenched, as it has been for a long time, we need not expect much reformation in our mode of preaching. There are, however, a few who have eyes to see, and hearts to deplore the things now under consideration. The errors of preachers are not private ones, but are disseminated from the pulpit among the brethren, and produce among them contentions, divisions, coldness and barrenness; they act on their minds as doth a canker on the body." (Pg. 538, 539)
Again, Dr. Watson clearly and honestly demonstrated the heresy of the Hardshells regarding the execution of the "Great Commission" and on the gospel being the means or "Lord's way" of calling his people to life and salvation in Christ.
May 16, 2008
Warren's Church's Confession
ABOUT SALVATION
"Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God´s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin´s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith."
Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1
http://saddleback.com/flash/believe2.html
This is the statement of faith of Saddleback Church that Rick Warren pastors. It seems his "Kuyperian" views do not conincide with those of his church.
"Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works. Only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God´s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin´s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith."
Romans 6:23; Ephesians 2:8,9; John 14:6, 1:12; Titus 3:5; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1
http://saddleback.com/flash/believe2.html
This is the statement of faith of Saddleback Church that Rick Warren pastors. It seems his "Kuyperian" views do not conincide with those of his church.
Kuyper's Hardshellism
Here are excerpts from Abraham Kuyper's book "Work of the Holy Spirit." I posted some of his writings in a recent post. These citations demonstrate that Kuyper was a Hardshell on regeneration and the new birth.
In the near future I hope to examine these citations by Kuyper and present a rebuttal.
I was amazed recently to have read this comment in the Founder's blog by Rick Warren.
"By the way, I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am a Kuyper-Calvinist! Abraham Kuyper was right about so much. You can see his influence all through Purpose Driven Life."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5669175&postID=594958766343256492
But, after one reads these citations from Kuyper he should see that Kuyper was a Hardshell on his understanding of regeneration or the new birth and on the use of "means." You know that "Kuyper" rhymes with "Hyper"?
Here are some statements on the matter from the triablogue blog.
"In Old Hardshell doctrine any person, not only an infant, may be regenerated by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit and not become conscious of it for a lengthy interval, even a great many years. From this comes their doctrines of “time salvation” and “eternal justification.” In contrast, View 2 above states that, while the agency of the Holy Spirit is immediate and, technically, His own work apart from means, in all but infants (the exception to the rule), this does not happen apart from instrumentality of the Word, and the first conscious action of the person is to repent and believe, and, moreover, because of the use of instrumentality, they are actively engaged in the psychology of this process."
"Strictly speaking, from a Baptist perspective, both views seem to involve a time gap between regeneration and effectual calling, judging from a surface level comparison. Moreover, because Baptists deny that children are part of the New Covenant, Reformed / Sovereign Grace Baptists have no conceptual mechanism by which to presume infants regenerate, making the Old Hardshell position seem grossly illogical as a result. However, Baptists standing in the broader Reformed tradition do often, as Boyce demonstrates, affirm the possibility of infant regeneration under the Princetonian, not the Kuyperian, paradigm, because of their pastoral experience, not because of any theology of covenant children."
"In the Kuyperian tradition, there is a time gap between regeneration and effectual calling. This is closer to the Old Hardshell doctrine, but it is not the view of Sproul, Frame, et.al. They hold to the Princeton tradition in this matter. It is unfair, therefore, for certain individuals to lump all persons affirming the regeneration of infants in the Presbyterian tradition together while dropping their distinctive approaches. There are not, as these critics suggest, in the Princetonian tradition, regenerated persons walking around as adults who have not believed in the Lord, for if a child makes it past the age of 3, or at most 4 years of age, s/he is not to be considered an elect infant. What is more, only the Kuyperian tradition treats infants as presumptively elect."
"Others advance the view that preparatory grace prepares not for the reception of life, but for conversion. And, this is just as pernicious. For then the soul’s salvation depends not upon regeneration, but upon conversion; and this makes the salvation of our deceased infants impossible. Nay, standing by the graves of our baptized young children, confident of their salvation through the one Name given under heaven, we reject the teaching that salvation depends upon conversion; but confess that it is effected by the divine act of creating in to a new life, which sooner or later manifests itself in conversion."
"Preparatory grace always precedes the new life; hence it ceases even before holy Baptism, in infants quickened before being baptized. Hence in a more limited sense, preparatory grace operates only in persons quickened later on in life, shortly before conversion. For the sinner once quickened has received grace, i.e., the germ of all grace; and that which exists can not be prepared."
"A third error, on this point, is the representation that certain moods and dispositions must be prepared in the sinner before God can quicken him; as tho quickening grace were conditioned upon preparatory grace. The salvation of our deceased infants opposes this also. There were no moods or dispositions in them; yet no theologian will say that they are lost, or that they are saved by another name than the One in whom adults find salvation. No; the sinner needs nothing whatever to predispose him for the implanting of the new life; and, tho he were the most hardened sinner, devoid of every predisposition, God is able at His own time to quicken him. The omnipotence of divine grace is unlimited."
"The implanting of the new life is not a moral, but a metaphysical act of God—i.e., He does not effect it by admonishing the sinner, but independently of his will and consciousness; yet despite his will, He plants something in him whereby his nature obtains another quality."
"Even the representation, still maintained by some of our best theologians, that preparatory grace is like the drying of wet wood, so that the spark can more readily ignite it, we can not adopt. (The view of Owen - SMG) Wet wood will not take the spark. It must be dried before it can be kindled. And this does not apply to the work of grace. The disposition of our souls is immaterial. Whatever it may be, omnipotent grace can kindle it. And, tho we do not undervalue dispositions, yet we do not concede to them the potentiality of kindling."
"For this reason the theologians of the flourishing period of our churches insisted that preparatory grace should not be treated loosely, but in the following order: “The grace of God first precedes, then prepares, and lastly performs (præveniens, præparans, operans)—i.e., grace is always first, never waits for anything in us, but begins its work before there is anything in us. Second, the time before our quickening is not wasted, but during it grace prepares us for our lifework in the kingdom. Third, at the appointed time grace alone quickens us unaided; hence, grace is the operans, the real worker. Hence preparatory grace must never be understood as a means to prepare for the impartation of life. Nothing prepares for such quickening. Life is enkindled, wholly unprepared, not from anything in us, but entirely by the working of God. All that preparatory grace accomplishes is this, that God by it so disposes our life, arranges its course, and directs our development that being quickened by His exclusive act, we shall possess the disposition required for the task assigned to us in the kingdom."
"Our person is like the field wherein the sower is to scatter the seed. Suppose there are two fields in which the seed must be sown; the one has been plowed, fertilized, harrowed, and cleared of stones, while the other lies fallow, uncared for. What is the result? Does the former produce wheat of itself? By no means; the furrows were never so deep and the ground never so rich and smooth, if it receives no seed-grain it will never yield a single ear. And the other, not cultivated, will surely germinate the seed scattered therein. The origin of the wheat sown has no connection with the cultivation of the field, since the seed-grain is conveyed thither from elsewhere. But to the growth of the wheat, cultivation is of greatest importance. And so it is in the spiritual kingdom. Whether great or small, preparatory grace contributes nothing to the origin of life, which springs from the “incorruptible seed” sown in the heart. But to its development it is of greatest importance."
"This is why the Reformed churches so strongly insist upon the careful training of our children. For, altho we confess that all our training can not create the least spark of heavenly fire; yet we know that when God puts that spark into their hearts, kindling the new fife, much will depend upon the condition in which it finds them."
"Hence we recognize among the rising generation in the Church four classes:
1. All elect persons regenerated before Baptism, in whom the implanted life remains hidden until they are converted at a later age.
2. Elect persons, not only regenerated in infancy, but in whom the implanted life was early manifested and ripened imperceptibly into conversion.
3. Elect persons born again, and converted in later life.
4. The non-elect, or the chaff."
"The same applies to the elect of the second class. Altho we concede that the divine call works upon such during their tender years, yet, while it prepares for conversion, it does not prepare for regeneration, which it follows."
"The call is ineffectual unless the faculty of hearing be first implanted. Only he that has an ear can hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches and to his own soul. Hence, in this case, preparatory grace is scarcely perceptible. Surely there are many agencies that imperceptibly prepare for his conversion; but this is different from a preparing for regeneration, and we speak now only of the latter."
"Properly speaking, preparatory grace in its limited sense is applied only to the third class of elect persons. It comprehends their whole life with all its turns and changes, relations and connections, heights and depths, events and adversities. Not as tho all these could produce the slightest germ of life or possibility of quickening. No; the germ of life can never spring from preparatory grace, any more than the preparation of ten cradles, of a dozen of clothes baskets, and of closets full of expensive infant-garments can ever juggle a single infant into any of those cradles. The vital spark is produced only by an act of the mighty God, independent of all preparation. But, from its birth, God guards that wild-vine and controls the growth of its wild shoots, so that in the hour of His pleasure, when He shall graft upon it the true vine, it may be all that it ought to be."
"Hence without regeneration the sinner is utterly unprofitable. What is the use of an ear except it hear, or of an eye except it see? Therefore the Holy Ghost testifies: “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made even both of them.” (Prov. xx. 12) And since in the world of spiritual things deaf ears and blind eyes do not avail anything, the Church of Christ confesses that every operation of saving grace must be preceded by a quickening of the sinner, by an opening of blind eyes, an unstopping of deaf ears—in short, by the implanting of the faculty of faith."
"This wonderful act of regeneration may be examined in two classes of persons: in the infant and in the adult.
It is the safest way to examine it in the infant: not because this work of grace is different in an infant from what it is in an adult, for it is the same in all persons thus favored; but to the conscious observation of an adult the workings of regeneration are so mingled with those of conversion that it is difficult to distinguish the two."
"But this difficulty does not exist in the case of an unconscious child, as, e.g., in John the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth. Such infant has no consciousness to create confusion. The matter appears in a pure and unmixed form. And thus we are enabled to distinguish between regeneration and conversion in an adult. It is evident that in the case of an infant which, like John, is still unborn, there can be nothing but mere passivity—i.e., the child underwent something, but himself did nothing; something was done to him, and in him, but not by him; and every idea of cooperation is absolutely excluded."
"Of course, God justifies the ungodly and not the righteous; He calls sinners to repentance and not just persons; but it should be remembered that this is spoken from the point of view of our own consciousness of sin."
"And this implies that the work of regeneration is not a moral work; that is, it is not accomplished by means of advice or exhortation."
"For this reason it is so necessary to examine regeneration (in its limited sense) in an infant, and not in an adult, in whom it necessarily includes conversion.
The following reasoning can not be disputed:
1. All men, infants included, are born dead in trespasses and sins.
2. Of these infants many die before they come to self-consciousness.
3. Of these gathered flowers the Church confesses that many are saved.
4. Being dead in sin, they can not be saved without being born again.
5. Hence regeneration does actually take place in persons that are not self-conscious."
"These statements being indisputable, it is evident, therefore, that the nature and character of regeneration can be determined most correctly by examining it in these still unconscious persons."
"Such an unborn infant is totally ignorant of human language; it has no ideas, has never heard the Gospel preached, can not receive instruction, warning, or exhortation. Hence moral influence is out of the question; and this convinces us that regeneration is not a moral, but a metaphysical act of God, just as much as the creation of the soul of an unborn child, which is effected independently of the mother. God regenerates a man wholly without his foreknowledge."
"And so it is here. The new, ingrafted life may lie dormant for a season, like a grain of wheat in the earth; but when it begins to work it will be according to the nature of the new life. Hence regeneration implants the life-germ of the new man, whom it contains in all his completeness, and from which it will proceed as surely as the wheat contained in the seed proceeds from it."
"In order to assist us in our representation of this mystery, the greatest theologian of the Reformed churches has presented the divine plan in regeneration in the following stages:
(1) In His own mind God conceives the new man; whom (2) He modifies according to a particular person, thus creating the new man; (3) He brings the germ of this new man into the center of our being; (4) in which center He effects the union between our ego and this germinating life; (5) in that vital germ God supports the formative power, which at His appointed time He will cause to come forth, by which our ego will manifest itself as a new man."
"And what is this mysterious working? According to the universal testimony based upon Scripture, it is an operation of the Holy Spirit in man’s innermost being.
Hence the question, whether this regenerating act precedes, accompanies, or follows the hearing of the Word. And this question should be well understood, for it involves the solution of this seeming disagreement.
We answer: The Holy Spirit may perform this work in the sinner’s heart before, during, or after the preaching of the Word. The inward call may be associated with the outward call, or it may follow it. But that which precedes the inward call, viz., the opening of the deaf ear, so that it may be heard, is not dependent upon the preaching of the Word; and therefore may precede the preaching.
"And discriminating again between that which the Holy Spirit wrought in us consciously and unconsciously, then regeneration designates that which was wrought in us unconsciously, while conversion is the term we apply to the awakening of this implanted life in our consciousness."
"Hence God’s work of grace runs through these three successive stages:
1st. Regeneration in its first stage, when the Lord plants the new life in the dead heart.
2d. Regeneration in its second stage, when the new-born man comes to conversion.
3d. Regeneration in its third stage, when conversion merges into sanctification.
In each of these three God performs a wonderful and mysterious work in man’s inward being. From God proceed quickening, conversion, and sanctification, and in each God is the Worker: only with this difference, that in the quickening He works alone, finding and leaving man inactive; that in conversion He finds us inactive, but makes us active; that in sanctification He works in us in such a manner that we work ourselves through Him.
Describing it still more closely, we say that in the first stage of regeneration, that of quickening, God works without means; in the second stage, that of conversion, He employs means, viz., the preaching of the Word; and in the third stage, that of sanctification, He uses means in addition to ourselves, whom He uses as means."
"Salvation depends upon faith, and faith upon the hearing of the Word; hence our deceased infants must be lost, for they can not hear the Word. To escape this fearful thought it is often said that the children are saved by virtue of the parents’ faith—a misunderstanding which greatly confused our entire conception of Baptism, and made our baptismal form very perplexing. But as soon as we distinguish quickening, as a stage of regeneration, from conversion and sanctification, the light enters. For since quickening is an unaided act of God in us, independent of the Word, and frequently separated from the second stage, conversion, by an interval of many days, there is nothing to prevent God from performing His work even in the babe, and the apparent conflict dissolves into beautiful harmony."
"Touching the question concerning “faith,” we are fully prepared to apply the same distinction to this matter. You have only to discriminate between the organ or the faculty of faith, the Power to exercise faith, and the working of faith. The first of these three, viz., the faculty of faith, is implanted in the first stage of regeneration—i.e., in quickening; the power of faith is imparted in the second stage of regeneration—i.e., in conversion; and the working of faith is wrought in the third stage—i.e., in sanctification. Hence if faith is wrought only by the hearing of the Word, the preaching of the Word does not create the faculty of faith."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kuyper/holy_spirit.vii.iv.vi.html
In closing let me say that I have already dealt with infant regeneration in two chapters in my book on the Hardshells (chapters 11 & 41).
Clearly the Hardshells would say "amen" to most of this! Now, how can Rick Warren say he is a "Kuyperist" but not a "Hyperist"?
But, more to come!
In the near future I hope to examine these citations by Kuyper and present a rebuttal.
I was amazed recently to have read this comment in the Founder's blog by Rick Warren.
"By the way, I am not a hyper-Calvinist. I am a Kuyper-Calvinist! Abraham Kuyper was right about so much. You can see his influence all through Purpose Driven Life."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5669175&postID=594958766343256492
But, after one reads these citations from Kuyper he should see that Kuyper was a Hardshell on his understanding of regeneration or the new birth and on the use of "means." You know that "Kuyper" rhymes with "Hyper"?
Here are some statements on the matter from the triablogue blog.
"In Old Hardshell doctrine any person, not only an infant, may be regenerated by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit and not become conscious of it for a lengthy interval, even a great many years. From this comes their doctrines of “time salvation” and “eternal justification.” In contrast, View 2 above states that, while the agency of the Holy Spirit is immediate and, technically, His own work apart from means, in all but infants (the exception to the rule), this does not happen apart from instrumentality of the Word, and the first conscious action of the person is to repent and believe, and, moreover, because of the use of instrumentality, they are actively engaged in the psychology of this process."
"Strictly speaking, from a Baptist perspective, both views seem to involve a time gap between regeneration and effectual calling, judging from a surface level comparison. Moreover, because Baptists deny that children are part of the New Covenant, Reformed / Sovereign Grace Baptists have no conceptual mechanism by which to presume infants regenerate, making the Old Hardshell position seem grossly illogical as a result. However, Baptists standing in the broader Reformed tradition do often, as Boyce demonstrates, affirm the possibility of infant regeneration under the Princetonian, not the Kuyperian, paradigm, because of their pastoral experience, not because of any theology of covenant children."
"In the Kuyperian tradition, there is a time gap between regeneration and effectual calling. This is closer to the Old Hardshell doctrine, but it is not the view of Sproul, Frame, et.al. They hold to the Princeton tradition in this matter. It is unfair, therefore, for certain individuals to lump all persons affirming the regeneration of infants in the Presbyterian tradition together while dropping their distinctive approaches. There are not, as these critics suggest, in the Princetonian tradition, regenerated persons walking around as adults who have not believed in the Lord, for if a child makes it past the age of 3, or at most 4 years of age, s/he is not to be considered an elect infant. What is more, only the Kuyperian tradition treats infants as presumptively elect."
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/regeneration-and-flyswatter-part-two.html
Kuyper wrote:"Others advance the view that preparatory grace prepares not for the reception of life, but for conversion. And, this is just as pernicious. For then the soul’s salvation depends not upon regeneration, but upon conversion; and this makes the salvation of our deceased infants impossible. Nay, standing by the graves of our baptized young children, confident of their salvation through the one Name given under heaven, we reject the teaching that salvation depends upon conversion; but confess that it is effected by the divine act of creating in to a new life, which sooner or later manifests itself in conversion."
"Preparatory grace always precedes the new life; hence it ceases even before holy Baptism, in infants quickened before being baptized. Hence in a more limited sense, preparatory grace operates only in persons quickened later on in life, shortly before conversion. For the sinner once quickened has received grace, i.e., the germ of all grace; and that which exists can not be prepared."
"A third error, on this point, is the representation that certain moods and dispositions must be prepared in the sinner before God can quicken him; as tho quickening grace were conditioned upon preparatory grace. The salvation of our deceased infants opposes this also. There were no moods or dispositions in them; yet no theologian will say that they are lost, or that they are saved by another name than the One in whom adults find salvation. No; the sinner needs nothing whatever to predispose him for the implanting of the new life; and, tho he were the most hardened sinner, devoid of every predisposition, God is able at His own time to quicken him. The omnipotence of divine grace is unlimited."
"The implanting of the new life is not a moral, but a metaphysical act of God—i.e., He does not effect it by admonishing the sinner, but independently of his will and consciousness; yet despite his will, He plants something in him whereby his nature obtains another quality."
"Even the representation, still maintained by some of our best theologians, that preparatory grace is like the drying of wet wood, so that the spark can more readily ignite it, we can not adopt. (The view of Owen - SMG) Wet wood will not take the spark. It must be dried before it can be kindled. And this does not apply to the work of grace. The disposition of our souls is immaterial. Whatever it may be, omnipotent grace can kindle it. And, tho we do not undervalue dispositions, yet we do not concede to them the potentiality of kindling."
"For this reason the theologians of the flourishing period of our churches insisted that preparatory grace should not be treated loosely, but in the following order: “The grace of God first precedes, then prepares, and lastly performs (præveniens, præparans, operans)—i.e., grace is always first, never waits for anything in us, but begins its work before there is anything in us. Second, the time before our quickening is not wasted, but during it grace prepares us for our lifework in the kingdom. Third, at the appointed time grace alone quickens us unaided; hence, grace is the operans, the real worker. Hence preparatory grace must never be understood as a means to prepare for the impartation of life. Nothing prepares for such quickening. Life is enkindled, wholly unprepared, not from anything in us, but entirely by the working of God. All that preparatory grace accomplishes is this, that God by it so disposes our life, arranges its course, and directs our development that being quickened by His exclusive act, we shall possess the disposition required for the task assigned to us in the kingdom."
"Our person is like the field wherein the sower is to scatter the seed. Suppose there are two fields in which the seed must be sown; the one has been plowed, fertilized, harrowed, and cleared of stones, while the other lies fallow, uncared for. What is the result? Does the former produce wheat of itself? By no means; the furrows were never so deep and the ground never so rich and smooth, if it receives no seed-grain it will never yield a single ear. And the other, not cultivated, will surely germinate the seed scattered therein. The origin of the wheat sown has no connection with the cultivation of the field, since the seed-grain is conveyed thither from elsewhere. But to the growth of the wheat, cultivation is of greatest importance. And so it is in the spiritual kingdom. Whether great or small, preparatory grace contributes nothing to the origin of life, which springs from the “incorruptible seed” sown in the heart. But to its development it is of greatest importance."
"This is why the Reformed churches so strongly insist upon the careful training of our children. For, altho we confess that all our training can not create the least spark of heavenly fire; yet we know that when God puts that spark into their hearts, kindling the new fife, much will depend upon the condition in which it finds them."
"Hence we recognize among the rising generation in the Church four classes:
1. All elect persons regenerated before Baptism, in whom the implanted life remains hidden until they are converted at a later age.
2. Elect persons, not only regenerated in infancy, but in whom the implanted life was early manifested and ripened imperceptibly into conversion.
3. Elect persons born again, and converted in later life.
4. The non-elect, or the chaff."
"The same applies to the elect of the second class. Altho we concede that the divine call works upon such during their tender years, yet, while it prepares for conversion, it does not prepare for regeneration, which it follows."
"The call is ineffectual unless the faculty of hearing be first implanted. Only he that has an ear can hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches and to his own soul. Hence, in this case, preparatory grace is scarcely perceptible. Surely there are many agencies that imperceptibly prepare for his conversion; but this is different from a preparing for regeneration, and we speak now only of the latter."
"Properly speaking, preparatory grace in its limited sense is applied only to the third class of elect persons. It comprehends their whole life with all its turns and changes, relations and connections, heights and depths, events and adversities. Not as tho all these could produce the slightest germ of life or possibility of quickening. No; the germ of life can never spring from preparatory grace, any more than the preparation of ten cradles, of a dozen of clothes baskets, and of closets full of expensive infant-garments can ever juggle a single infant into any of those cradles. The vital spark is produced only by an act of the mighty God, independent of all preparation. But, from its birth, God guards that wild-vine and controls the growth of its wild shoots, so that in the hour of His pleasure, when He shall graft upon it the true vine, it may be all that it ought to be."
"Hence without regeneration the sinner is utterly unprofitable. What is the use of an ear except it hear, or of an eye except it see? Therefore the Holy Ghost testifies: “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made even both of them.” (Prov. xx. 12) And since in the world of spiritual things deaf ears and blind eyes do not avail anything, the Church of Christ confesses that every operation of saving grace must be preceded by a quickening of the sinner, by an opening of blind eyes, an unstopping of deaf ears—in short, by the implanting of the faculty of faith."
"This wonderful act of regeneration may be examined in two classes of persons: in the infant and in the adult.
It is the safest way to examine it in the infant: not because this work of grace is different in an infant from what it is in an adult, for it is the same in all persons thus favored; but to the conscious observation of an adult the workings of regeneration are so mingled with those of conversion that it is difficult to distinguish the two."
"But this difficulty does not exist in the case of an unconscious child, as, e.g., in John the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth. Such infant has no consciousness to create confusion. The matter appears in a pure and unmixed form. And thus we are enabled to distinguish between regeneration and conversion in an adult. It is evident that in the case of an infant which, like John, is still unborn, there can be nothing but mere passivity—i.e., the child underwent something, but himself did nothing; something was done to him, and in him, but not by him; and every idea of cooperation is absolutely excluded."
"Of course, God justifies the ungodly and not the righteous; He calls sinners to repentance and not just persons; but it should be remembered that this is spoken from the point of view of our own consciousness of sin."
"And this implies that the work of regeneration is not a moral work; that is, it is not accomplished by means of advice or exhortation."
"For this reason it is so necessary to examine regeneration (in its limited sense) in an infant, and not in an adult, in whom it necessarily includes conversion.
The following reasoning can not be disputed:
1. All men, infants included, are born dead in trespasses and sins.
2. Of these infants many die before they come to self-consciousness.
3. Of these gathered flowers the Church confesses that many are saved.
4. Being dead in sin, they can not be saved without being born again.
5. Hence regeneration does actually take place in persons that are not self-conscious."
"These statements being indisputable, it is evident, therefore, that the nature and character of regeneration can be determined most correctly by examining it in these still unconscious persons."
"Such an unborn infant is totally ignorant of human language; it has no ideas, has never heard the Gospel preached, can not receive instruction, warning, or exhortation. Hence moral influence is out of the question; and this convinces us that regeneration is not a moral, but a metaphysical act of God, just as much as the creation of the soul of an unborn child, which is effected independently of the mother. God regenerates a man wholly without his foreknowledge."
"And so it is here. The new, ingrafted life may lie dormant for a season, like a grain of wheat in the earth; but when it begins to work it will be according to the nature of the new life. Hence regeneration implants the life-germ of the new man, whom it contains in all his completeness, and from which it will proceed as surely as the wheat contained in the seed proceeds from it."
"In order to assist us in our representation of this mystery, the greatest theologian of the Reformed churches has presented the divine plan in regeneration in the following stages:
(1) In His own mind God conceives the new man; whom (2) He modifies according to a particular person, thus creating the new man; (3) He brings the germ of this new man into the center of our being; (4) in which center He effects the union between our ego and this germinating life; (5) in that vital germ God supports the formative power, which at His appointed time He will cause to come forth, by which our ego will manifest itself as a new man."
"And what is this mysterious working? According to the universal testimony based upon Scripture, it is an operation of the Holy Spirit in man’s innermost being.
Hence the question, whether this regenerating act precedes, accompanies, or follows the hearing of the Word. And this question should be well understood, for it involves the solution of this seeming disagreement.
We answer: The Holy Spirit may perform this work in the sinner’s heart before, during, or after the preaching of the Word. The inward call may be associated with the outward call, or it may follow it. But that which precedes the inward call, viz., the opening of the deaf ear, so that it may be heard, is not dependent upon the preaching of the Word; and therefore may precede the preaching.
"And discriminating again between that which the Holy Spirit wrought in us consciously and unconsciously, then regeneration designates that which was wrought in us unconsciously, while conversion is the term we apply to the awakening of this implanted life in our consciousness."
"Hence God’s work of grace runs through these three successive stages:
1st. Regeneration in its first stage, when the Lord plants the new life in the dead heart.
2d. Regeneration in its second stage, when the new-born man comes to conversion.
3d. Regeneration in its third stage, when conversion merges into sanctification.
In each of these three God performs a wonderful and mysterious work in man’s inward being. From God proceed quickening, conversion, and sanctification, and in each God is the Worker: only with this difference, that in the quickening He works alone, finding and leaving man inactive; that in conversion He finds us inactive, but makes us active; that in sanctification He works in us in such a manner that we work ourselves through Him.
Describing it still more closely, we say that in the first stage of regeneration, that of quickening, God works without means; in the second stage, that of conversion, He employs means, viz., the preaching of the Word; and in the third stage, that of sanctification, He uses means in addition to ourselves, whom He uses as means."
"Salvation depends upon faith, and faith upon the hearing of the Word; hence our deceased infants must be lost, for they can not hear the Word. To escape this fearful thought it is often said that the children are saved by virtue of the parents’ faith—a misunderstanding which greatly confused our entire conception of Baptism, and made our baptismal form very perplexing. But as soon as we distinguish quickening, as a stage of regeneration, from conversion and sanctification, the light enters. For since quickening is an unaided act of God in us, independent of the Word, and frequently separated from the second stage, conversion, by an interval of many days, there is nothing to prevent God from performing His work even in the babe, and the apparent conflict dissolves into beautiful harmony."
"Touching the question concerning “faith,” we are fully prepared to apply the same distinction to this matter. You have only to discriminate between the organ or the faculty of faith, the Power to exercise faith, and the working of faith. The first of these three, viz., the faculty of faith, is implanted in the first stage of regeneration—i.e., in quickening; the power of faith is imparted in the second stage of regeneration—i.e., in conversion; and the working of faith is wrought in the third stage—i.e., in sanctification. Hence if faith is wrought only by the hearing of the Word, the preaching of the Word does not create the faculty of faith."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kuyper/holy_spirit.vii.iv.vi.html
In closing let me say that I have already dealt with infant regeneration in two chapters in my book on the Hardshells (chapters 11 & 41).
Clearly the Hardshells would say "amen" to most of this! Now, how can Rick Warren say he is a "Kuyperist" but not a "Hyperist"?
But, more to come!
May 15, 2008
Regeneration Without Faith?
"Faith without works is dead, being alone."
"Life without faith is dead."
"Regeneration without faith is dead."
"Life without faith is dead."
"Regeneration without faith is dead."
Spurgeon's Ordo Salutis
Those who promote the "pre-faith regeneration" view are often heard to speak of "regeneration" as that work in the soul that "enables it to believe." This is not exactly correct. What this view does is 1) not make faith itself that which enables, or if you will, the "enabling substance," and 2) makes faith a work, which it is not per Paul.
Sometimes the Hyperists will say that "God must first give eyes before one is able to see" (or exercise faith). But, again, this view fails to see that faith = ability, being itself the eye!
This is certainly what Spurgeon taught:
"For, first, without faith there is no capacity for communion with God at all. The things of God are spiritual and invisible—without faith we cannot recognize such things but must be dead to them. Faith is the eye which sees. But without that eye we are blind and can have no fellowship with God in those Sacred Truths which only faith can perceive. Faith is the hand of the soul, and without it, we have no grasp of eternal things. If I were to mention all the images by which faith is set forth, each one would help you to see that you must have faith in order to know God and enter into converse with Him.
It is only by faith that we can recognize God, approach Him, speak to Him, hear Him, feel His Presence and be delighted with His perfections. He that has not faith is toward God as one dead. And Jehovah is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
The communion of the living God goes not forth toward death and corruption. His fellowship is with those who have spiritual life, a life akin to His own. Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life.
And so the man who has no faith can no more commune with the living God and give Him pleasure, than can a stick or a stone, a horse or an ox, hold converse with the human mind. (Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).
And further:
MTP, Sermon #656 on PREVENIENT GRACE
"Now let me show you how God’s grace does come to work on the human heart so as to make it good soil before the living seed is cast into it, so that before quickening grace really visits it the heart may be called a good heart, because it is prepared to receive that grace.
I think this takes place thus: first of all, before quickening grace comes, God often gives an attentive ear, and makes a man willing to listen to the Word. Not only does he like to listen to it, but he wants to know the meaning of it; there is a little excitement in his mind to know what the gospel tidings really are. He is not saved as yet, but it is always a hopeful sign when a man is willing to listen to the truth, and is anxious to understand it. This is one thing which prevenient grace does in making the soul good.
In Ezekiel’s vision, as you will recollect, before the breath came from the four winds the bones began to stir, and they came together bone to his bone. So, before the Spirit of God comes to a man in effectual calling, God’s grace often comes to make a stir in the man’s mind, so that he is no longer indifferent to the truth, but is anxious to understand what it means."
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/bob-ross-regeneration-calv_114261719496018943.html
Sometimes the Hyperists will say that "God must first give eyes before one is able to see" (or exercise faith). But, again, this view fails to see that faith = ability, being itself the eye!
This is certainly what Spurgeon taught:
"For, first, without faith there is no capacity for communion with God at all. The things of God are spiritual and invisible—without faith we cannot recognize such things but must be dead to them. Faith is the eye which sees. But without that eye we are blind and can have no fellowship with God in those Sacred Truths which only faith can perceive. Faith is the hand of the soul, and without it, we have no grasp of eternal things. If I were to mention all the images by which faith is set forth, each one would help you to see that you must have faith in order to know God and enter into converse with Him.
It is only by faith that we can recognize God, approach Him, speak to Him, hear Him, feel His Presence and be delighted with His perfections. He that has not faith is toward God as one dead. And Jehovah is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
The communion of the living God goes not forth toward death and corruption. His fellowship is with those who have spiritual life, a life akin to His own. Where there is no faith, there has been no quickening of the Holy Spirit, for faith is of the very essence of spiritual life.
And so the man who has no faith can no more commune with the living God and give Him pleasure, than can a stick or a stone, a horse or an ox, hold converse with the human mind. (Faith Essential to Pleasing God, MTP, Sermon #2100, Vol. 35, 446).
And further:
MTP, Sermon #656 on PREVENIENT GRACE
"Now let me show you how God’s grace does come to work on the human heart so as to make it good soil before the living seed is cast into it, so that before quickening grace really visits it the heart may be called a good heart, because it is prepared to receive that grace.
I think this takes place thus: first of all, before quickening grace comes, God often gives an attentive ear, and makes a man willing to listen to the Word. Not only does he like to listen to it, but he wants to know the meaning of it; there is a little excitement in his mind to know what the gospel tidings really are. He is not saved as yet, but it is always a hopeful sign when a man is willing to listen to the truth, and is anxious to understand it. This is one thing which prevenient grace does in making the soul good.
In Ezekiel’s vision, as you will recollect, before the breath came from the four winds the bones began to stir, and they came together bone to his bone. So, before the Spirit of God comes to a man in effectual calling, God’s grace often comes to make a stir in the man’s mind, so that he is no longer indifferent to the truth, but is anxious to understand what it means."
http://calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/03/bob-ross-regeneration-calv_114261719496018943.html
May 13, 2008
post hoc ergo propter hoc
post hoc ergo propter hoc - the logical fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation
Fallacy: Post Hoc
Also Known as: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, False Cause, Questionable Cause, Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes
Description of Post Hoc
A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:
A occurs before B.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
As I mentioned in my previous post, the "pre-faith regeneration" view is guilty of this logical fallacy when they see passages where regeneration is put before faith or repentance.
And, the evidence for this being such a logical fallacy is due, as I said, for failing to see that just as many passages that put regeneration before faith likewise put it after, demonstrating that one was not the cause of the other.
Fallacy: Post Hoc
Also Known as: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, False Cause, Questionable Cause, Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes
Description of Post Hoc
A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:
A occurs before B.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
As I mentioned in my previous post, the "pre-faith regeneration" view is guilty of this logical fallacy when they see passages where regeneration is put before faith or repentance.
And, the evidence for this being such a logical fallacy is due, as I said, for failing to see that just as many passages that put regeneration before faith likewise put it after, demonstrating that one was not the cause of the other.
Reviewing Ascol on Regeneration
"The Doctrine of Regeneration" by Bill Ascol
"The Bible doctrine of regeneration has suffered at the hands of its enemies as well as its friends."
"More tragic than that, perhaps, is the treatment that the Bible doctrine of regeneration has received at the hands of its professed "friends."
"In many Christian circles today experiencing "regeneration" (or "being born again") is simply something that happens when a person "makes a decision to accept Jesus Christ into his heart as personal Savior." Now it is certainly true that Jesus is the Savior, and that he saves sinners on a personal level. However, the idea that the experience of regeneration is a decision which every sinner ought to make and indeed every sinner can make is an idea which is seriously defective. The defects in this idea become increasingly clear when viewed from the vantage points of Biblical material, historic Baptist teachings, and the contemporary Southern Baptist position on this doctrine."
First, it seems that Bill equates "regeneration" with the "new birth." I take that as an evidence that he does not believe in the three stage model of the spiritual birth.
Second, Bill does not believe that sinners are to be called upon to decide in favor of Christ, that is, choose to follow him. He believes this is bad doctrine. He does not believe that sinners are to ask for, or pray for, or seek to be saved (regenerated or born again)! I say that such statements like that have 1) done more to hurt the spread of biblical Calvinism than all his other efforts at promoting it, and 2) done more to hinder evangelism than perhaps any other doctrine, and 3) done more to fog the minds of disciples about what constitutes biblical regeneration than to enlighten them about it.
Does Bill not believe it is scriptural to call upon sinners to make a decision to be saved? To call upon them to seek it and to ask Christ for it? Apparently so. What is Bill's message to sinners, then? It is the same as the Hardshells, which says - "if you are regenerated and already saved, then decide to follow Christ"! Friends, you can call it by any other name but it is still Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism.
If I were still a Hardshell, I would be contacting all these "reformed Baptists" and trying to get them to join with us! Maybe this is why some of them have lately been to visits with the Hardshells?
But, before I discuss the role of decision, choice, and the will in the experience of salvation (or the new birth or regeneration), I will cite Bill further where he tries to prove that the will of the sinner makes no choices either "in order to" or "in" his new birth exerience.
Bill wrote:
"Regeneration may be defined as that supernatural work of the Holy Spirit of God which is performed in the life of a sinner whereby the sinner is given a new heart, being brought from spiritual death to spiritual life, and is made able and willing to repent of his sin before God and trust alone in Jesus Christ to be his Lord and Savior."
"There are many texts of Scripture which teach us about this work of the Holy Spirit. Two particular Old Testament prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were led by the Holy Spirit to communicate the doctrine of regeneration in terms of what God will do. One such reference is found in Ezek. 36:26-27: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." From these verses (and others like them--see Jer. 31:31-34, and Ezek. 11:19) it is easy to see that the force of the work of regeneration is bound up with God's initiating activity. It is also evident that the stony-hearted sinner will do nothing until God gives him a heart of flesh."
So, does this prove that men are regenerated before and without faith? Why cannot Bill see that the "new heart" is a believing heart? That the change of heart is one that changes if from unbelief to belief? What Calvinist, who believes that faith is not after, but a part of regeneration, denies that God must "initiate" the work of salvation and that the sinner is unable and unwilling to do so? Why, even most Arminians agree that God must initiate this work. So, Bill has not said anything yet to prove that men are first regenerated and later come to have faith. In fact, I have posted previous writings, with citations from Dr. Gill, where he taught that faith was the "principal part of regeneration," and that the creation of faith is the same as being born again. I have also cited him to show how he believed that the word was a means in producing this new heart.
Bill says:
"It should not surprise us that the New Testament writers are of one mind in their agreement with the language of the Old Testament writers concerning this matter of the new birth. For John, the only explanation for the fact that any "received Jesus" was that they were "born . . . of God" (see John 1:12-13). In fact, John categorically denies the possibility of a person being born again by virtue of a human decision when he states that these believing ones "were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." It is John who records for us the teachings of Jesus on the subject when he instructs Nicodemus that the new birth is mysterious much like the movement of the wind, and that, furthermore, it is a supernatural work so that we must be "born of the Spirit." (see John 3:1-8)."
I do not see how Bill can sever the decision to follow Christ, and to "receive him," and to "believe" on him, from what is principally the part of what it means to be "begotten." Are these things not what the sinner is begotten "to." Sinners are begotten TO life, faith, hope, and to a decision! Without these items, no one can be said to be "born of God" or "regenerated."
Actually, this verse, together with I John 5: 1, are the chief verses used by the Hardshells to prove that faith is no part of regeneration, affirming that men are regenerated first, without faith, and that faith comes later, or perhaps not at all. Is that what these verses teach? "I trow not," as Spurgeon would say.
I have also shown in previous writings how it was false to assert that there are no commands in the bible for a man to be saved, or converted, or to be born again and regenerated. I cited lots of them. To call men to be saved is to call them to be "made willing" or to "choose" for Christ to save them. And yes, when one obeys the invitation (or command), he is at the same time coming to life! But, I will save a more in depth review of these passages when I get to my next series on "Hardshell Proof Texts."
Bill says:
"Paul reminds the Ephesian believers that it was while they were still dead in their trespasses and sins that they were quickened to life by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth (Eph. 2:1-5). James asserts that our new birth experience must be traced back to the will of God (James 1:18). Peter exults that the new birth did not come to pass by the agency of anything corruptible, but by that which is incorruptible (1 Pet. 1:23-25)."
Again, I have already cited these words of Bill in a previous entry and stated that Bill errs in not seeing how that Paul identifies the gospel conversion of the Ephesians as synonymous with their "regeneration" or spiritual "resurrection" (or 'quickening'). So, there is no argument here. Paul equates the coming to life with the coming to faith! (Eph. 1: 19)
Bill says:
"It should be clear from this brief overview that the key Old and New Testament passages on the subject of regeneration do not teach that it is the decision made by a person to accept Jesus as personal Savior."
No, those passages do not teach that at all! What kind of "renewed heart" is it that has not yet decided for Christ or believed on him? Did I not cite passages in both Testaments where God called upon sinners to "make themselves a new heart" and "circumcise their hearts to the Lord"? Was this not calling upon them to choose to do as he called upon them to do?
Bill says:
"The Biblical language forces the serious and honest student of Scripture to consider regeneration as a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a sinner producing a change of heart that is the equivalent of being brought from spiritual death to spiritual life. Repentance and faith are evidences that this spiritual life has been planted in the soul of the individual. Some of this may happen in a manner that is beyond our comprehension, but those things which are comprehensible cannot be denied."
http://www.founders.org/journal/fj02/article2.html
"The Bible doctrine of regeneration has suffered at the hands of its enemies as well as its friends."
"More tragic than that, perhaps, is the treatment that the Bible doctrine of regeneration has received at the hands of its professed "friends."
It is ironic to me that the man who wrote this is himself guilty of the thing he condemns. The fact is, it is the view of Bill and other "Reformed Baptists," concerning regeneration, that has suffered at the hands of "its professed friends." To sever faith from regeneration, and to make it a post hoc thing, as he and they do, has been detrimental to the spread of the gospel. The history of the Hardshells, who share Bill's view, proves this to be the case.
Bill says further:"In many Christian circles today experiencing "regeneration" (or "being born again") is simply something that happens when a person "makes a decision to accept Jesus Christ into his heart as personal Savior." Now it is certainly true that Jesus is the Savior, and that he saves sinners on a personal level. However, the idea that the experience of regeneration is a decision which every sinner ought to make and indeed every sinner can make is an idea which is seriously defective. The defects in this idea become increasingly clear when viewed from the vantage points of Biblical material, historic Baptist teachings, and the contemporary Southern Baptist position on this doctrine."
First, it seems that Bill equates "regeneration" with the "new birth." I take that as an evidence that he does not believe in the three stage model of the spiritual birth.
Second, Bill does not believe that sinners are to be called upon to decide in favor of Christ, that is, choose to follow him. He believes this is bad doctrine. He does not believe that sinners are to ask for, or pray for, or seek to be saved (regenerated or born again)! I say that such statements like that have 1) done more to hurt the spread of biblical Calvinism than all his other efforts at promoting it, and 2) done more to hinder evangelism than perhaps any other doctrine, and 3) done more to fog the minds of disciples about what constitutes biblical regeneration than to enlighten them about it.
Does Bill not believe it is scriptural to call upon sinners to make a decision to be saved? To call upon them to seek it and to ask Christ for it? Apparently so. What is Bill's message to sinners, then? It is the same as the Hardshells, which says - "if you are regenerated and already saved, then decide to follow Christ"! Friends, you can call it by any other name but it is still Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism.
If I were still a Hardshell, I would be contacting all these "reformed Baptists" and trying to get them to join with us! Maybe this is why some of them have lately been to visits with the Hardshells?
But, before I discuss the role of decision, choice, and the will in the experience of salvation (or the new birth or regeneration), I will cite Bill further where he tries to prove that the will of the sinner makes no choices either "in order to" or "in" his new birth exerience.
Bill wrote:
"Regeneration may be defined as that supernatural work of the Holy Spirit of God which is performed in the life of a sinner whereby the sinner is given a new heart, being brought from spiritual death to spiritual life, and is made able and willing to repent of his sin before God and trust alone in Jesus Christ to be his Lord and Savior."
Yes, all this is true, except I think for the misinterpretation of them by Bill and others. Would it make any difference to rephrase the paragraph to say -
"Regeneration may be defined as that supernatural work of the Holy Spirit of God which is performed in the life of a sinner whereby the sinner is made able and willing to repent of his sin before God and trust alone in Jesus Christ to be his Lord and Savior, and given a new heart, being brought from spiritual death to spiritual life."
When men list things they may do it in order to demonstrate precise order, or with no precise order. Not all lists are to be taken as expressive of chronological order. Where there is no chronological order, and yet a list needs to be made, one cannot argue for one in such cases.
So, in the above listing of things that take place IN regeneration, I simply inverted which was listed first. I did this simply to demonstrate that the statement as written does not prove that one must first be regenerated and then come to faith and repentance, but that it simply lists the various things which take place or occur in regeneration, with no precise chronological order intended.
Under the title "The Bible and Regeneration," and in the same article, Bill writes:"There are many texts of Scripture which teach us about this work of the Holy Spirit. Two particular Old Testament prophets, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were led by the Holy Spirit to communicate the doctrine of regeneration in terms of what God will do. One such reference is found in Ezek. 36:26-27: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws." From these verses (and others like them--see Jer. 31:31-34, and Ezek. 11:19) it is easy to see that the force of the work of regeneration is bound up with God's initiating activity. It is also evident that the stony-hearted sinner will do nothing until God gives him a heart of flesh."
So, does this prove that men are regenerated before and without faith? Why cannot Bill see that the "new heart" is a believing heart? That the change of heart is one that changes if from unbelief to belief? What Calvinist, who believes that faith is not after, but a part of regeneration, denies that God must "initiate" the work of salvation and that the sinner is unable and unwilling to do so? Why, even most Arminians agree that God must initiate this work. So, Bill has not said anything yet to prove that men are first regenerated and later come to have faith. In fact, I have posted previous writings, with citations from Dr. Gill, where he taught that faith was the "principal part of regeneration," and that the creation of faith is the same as being born again. I have also cited him to show how he believed that the word was a means in producing this new heart.
Bill says:
"It should not surprise us that the New Testament writers are of one mind in their agreement with the language of the Old Testament writers concerning this matter of the new birth. For John, the only explanation for the fact that any "received Jesus" was that they were "born . . . of God" (see John 1:12-13). In fact, John categorically denies the possibility of a person being born again by virtue of a human decision when he states that these believing ones "were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." It is John who records for us the teachings of Jesus on the subject when he instructs Nicodemus that the new birth is mysterious much like the movement of the wind, and that, furthermore, it is a supernatural work so that we must be "born of the Spirit." (see John 3:1-8)."
I do not see how Bill can sever the decision to follow Christ, and to "receive him," and to "believe" on him, from what is principally the part of what it means to be "begotten." Are these things not what the sinner is begotten "to." Sinners are begotten TO life, faith, hope, and to a decision! Without these items, no one can be said to be "born of God" or "regenerated."
Actually, this verse, together with I John 5: 1, are the chief verses used by the Hardshells to prove that faith is no part of regeneration, affirming that men are regenerated first, without faith, and that faith comes later, or perhaps not at all. Is that what these verses teach? "I trow not," as Spurgeon would say.
I have also shown in previous writings how it was false to assert that there are no commands in the bible for a man to be saved, or converted, or to be born again and regenerated. I cited lots of them. To call men to be saved is to call them to be "made willing" or to "choose" for Christ to save them. And yes, when one obeys the invitation (or command), he is at the same time coming to life! But, I will save a more in depth review of these passages when I get to my next series on "Hardshell Proof Texts."
Bill says:
"Paul reminds the Ephesian believers that it was while they were still dead in their trespasses and sins that they were quickened to life by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the new birth (Eph. 2:1-5). James asserts that our new birth experience must be traced back to the will of God (James 1:18). Peter exults that the new birth did not come to pass by the agency of anything corruptible, but by that which is incorruptible (1 Pet. 1:23-25)."
Again, I have already cited these words of Bill in a previous entry and stated that Bill errs in not seeing how that Paul identifies the gospel conversion of the Ephesians as synonymous with their "regeneration" or spiritual "resurrection" (or 'quickening'). So, there is no argument here. Paul equates the coming to life with the coming to faith! (Eph. 1: 19)
Bill says:
"It should be clear from this brief overview that the key Old and New Testament passages on the subject of regeneration do not teach that it is the decision made by a person to accept Jesus as personal Savior."
No, those passages do not teach that at all! What kind of "renewed heart" is it that has not yet decided for Christ or believed on him? Did I not cite passages in both Testaments where God called upon sinners to "make themselves a new heart" and "circumcise their hearts to the Lord"? Was this not calling upon them to choose to do as he called upon them to do?
Bill says:
"The Biblical language forces the serious and honest student of Scripture to consider regeneration as a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a sinner producing a change of heart that is the equivalent of being brought from spiritual death to spiritual life. Repentance and faith are evidences that this spiritual life has been planted in the soul of the individual. Some of this may happen in a manner that is beyond our comprehension, but those things which are comprehensible cannot be denied."
How can faith be an "evidence" of regeneration if there be not faith "in" regeneration or a part of it? Life is an "evidence" of being "begotten," but one cannot be said to be "begotten" if he has no life! Again, one who believes that faith be a part of regeneration, yea, even a means of experiencing it, does not necessarily, as Bill avers, deny that the work is not of God nor supernatural!
Bill next tries to prove that his "pre-faith" view of "regeneration" is Baptistic under a subsection titled - "Historic Baptists and Regeneration." But, as brother Ross and I have already shown, the people he cites as agreeing with him do NOT agree with him. But, more on this in a separate post where I finish this review of Ascol's writing on "regeneration."http://www.founders.org/journal/fj02/article2.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)